%$'^ 










V I « 






o 



ft 



^ 'i' g , A 



N ' . V 

V' 



Ct-. 'i' 



9 1 \ C 



■'-." oV" '^' 



.^' 






^^ 



cT "€ 



L t « 



o V y 



</- \ 



lV 



-^ 



^%;^-\-.) 



? 1 ^ 



.0- 



\ 



Oo. 









^ c!^' ^ 
^^<^^ 

xV ./■>. 


















.0' 



'>?. '^ 









^ ' « >? '^<: 



^^. 



A' 



.% 



.A 



Ik 



A' ^ 



A. ,y> 






B . -/^^ 



O. 



^ 



^ V 



ECCE ECCLESIA: 



AN ESSAY, 



SHOWING THE ESSENTIAL IDENTITY 



OF 



THE CHURCH IN ALL AGES. 



/ J 1 



n\ 




^ NEW YORK: 

PUBLISHED BY BLELOCK AND CO, 

1868. 






Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1868, by 

BLELOCK & CO., 

in the Clerk's Office of the United States District Court for the Southern 
District of New York. 



LC Control Number 




tmp96 027381 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

CONCERIsIKa RELIGION BEFOUE THE FLOOD. 

Uncertainty of Chronology — The latter clause of Gen. iii. 15 
generally misunderstood — Religion was extensively and popu- 
larly taught — Origin of the Church — Christianity certainly 
existed then — Dr. Dwight and Dr. Kitto — Error of Eairbairn.. 33 



CHAPTER II. 

EELIGION FEOM THE FLOOD TO ABRAHAM. 

Length of the period uncertain — Religious appearance of the 
world after the Deluge — Noah was a Christian — Failure of 
Religion — Naturalness of the world — Nimr od 44 



CHAPTER III. 

A BRIEF EXPOSITION OF THE ABEAHAMIC ERA OF THE CHURCH. 

New method of external regulation in the Church— ^Mode of 
counteracting idolatry — Necessity for the Abrahamic arrange- 
ment — Knowledge is received progressively — The character 
of God gradually developed * 48 



6 ' CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XIII. 

JOHN" THE BAPTIST: HIS OFFICE AND EELATION TO THE CHUECH. 

Necessity that the Churcli be notified as to Christ's appearance — 
Principal object of John's ministry — His baptism — The re- 
pentance he preached — Relation of John's and Christ's disci- 
ples — Relation of Pharisees and Sadducees to their disciples — 
His admonition in Matt. iii. 7, misunderstood — His relation to 
Christ — Import of the baptism of Christ — John's relation to 
dispensations , 87 



CHAPTER XIV. 

THE ALLEGED COERUPTIOIN' OF THE CHUECH IN THE TIME OF CHEIST 
FAETHEE CONSIDEEED AND EEFUTED. 

Very erroneous and unguarded teaching of Dr. A. Clarke — 
Several considerations — Philo — Marvelous errors of Dr. 
Nevin 100 



CHAPTER XV. 

WHAT IS JUDAISM? 

Judaism defined — Judaism at and before Christ, and the totally 
different religion called by that name since — Judaism is Chris- 
tianity, or the Old Testament 108 



CHAPTER XVI. 

TEUE SCEIPTUEAL JUDAISM FAETHEE CONSIDEEED. 

Error of Mr. Watson : he treats two things as the same which 
are totally different, and highly antagonistic — The unbelieving 
Jews apostatized, and turned square away from their own 

- religion, repudiating Judaism in toto — Watson's inconsistency.. 112 



CONTENTS. ^ 7 

CHAPTER XVII. 

THE EELIGION OF POST-MESSIAITIC, OR MODEEi?- JEWS, FAETHER 
EXPLAINED AND ILLUSTRATED. 

Before Christ the Jews had the true religion — The exclusion of 
Christ from the Old Testament takes from it all its religion ... 117 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

■WHAT BECAME OF THE JEWISH CHURCH, AND WHERE IS IT NOW? 

It was the Church of God, and has not been changed for an- 
other — Blunder of Mr. Burkitt and others — Bad theology of 
Josephus Anderson 12c 



CHAPTER XIX. 

THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO THE PERIODS BEFORE AND SINCE 
THE TIME OF CHRIST. 

True idea of the Christian Church — Religious gravitation — 
What is same, and what different? — Judicious remarks of 
Mr. Watson 131 



CHAPTER XX. 

CONCERNING THE SACRAMENTS, AND THE CHANGES IN THE MODES OF 

ADMINISTERING THEM WHICH BECAME NECESSARY 

AT THE COMING OF CHRIST. 

They were naturally and unavoidably necessary in order that 
the Church might continue the same — Absolute necessity that 
the two sacraments of the ancient "Jews continue in the 
Church in all time-^Their design and natural place in all 
human religion — The Old Testament prescribes that circumci- 
sioji and passover cease on the coming of Christ — Mr. Watson 
and others confound a sacrament with the mode of administer- 
ing it ,„ 13j5 



8 CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XXI. 

CONCERNING THE JUDAIZING TEACHERS: WHO WERE THEY? WHAT 
WERE THEIR ERRORS? OR, WERE THERE ANY SUCH PERSONS? 

The question, not of Christ, but of the identity of the person — 
Misteachings of Judaism, and how it arose — Absurdity in 
Buck's Dictionary — Dr. Doddridge in the same error, and Mr. 
Watson — Injustice to St. Paul 150 



CHAPTER XXII. 

DID CHRIST OR THE APOSTLES INTRODUCE OR TEACH ANY NEW DOC- 
TRINES, EITHER OF RELIGION OR MORALS, NOT ALREADY 
TAUGHT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES? 

Personal divinity of Christ — Holy Ghost — Trinity — Depravity 
— Atonement — Moral Agency — Justification — Faith — Repent- 
ance — Regeneration — Witness of the Spirit — Sanctification — 
Apostasy — Resurrection — General Judgments-Future Punish- 
ment — Future Happiness * 157 



CHAPTER XXIII. 

DID CHRIST INTRODUCE OR TEACH ANY NEW ECCLESIASTICAL RULES? 

OR WERE THERE ANY, AND WHAT CHANGES IN PUBLIC 

WORSHIP OR CHURCH USAGES IN THOSE DAYS? 

What the questions in those days were and what they were not 
— No difficulties about Church rules or Church jurisdiction — 
What the charges against Jews were — Error as to following 
the model of the synagogue 165 



CHAPTER XXIV. 

WAS THE FORMATION OF A NEW, OR ANOTHER CHURCH, AT THE TIME 
OF CHRIST, OR AT ANY OTHER TIME, A POSSIBLE THING? 

Mistake and inconsistency oi- authors — Church forms itself 
naturally and unavoidably — Another Church at any time 
must be apostasy , 171 



CONTENTS. 9 

CHAPTER XXV. 

THE QUESTION OF THE PERSONAL IDENTITY OF CHRIST APPLIED TO 
THE CHURCH BEFORE, AND DURING-, AND AFTER HIS LIFE% 

Belief in the Christ of the Old Testament and in Jesus quite 
different things — John first raised the latter question — But it 
could not amount to faith until after the resurrection — Chro- 
nological aspect maintained 177 



CHAPTER XXVI. 

WHO WERE PROSELYTES, AND WHAT WAS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEK 

THEM AND JEWS? 

Everybody recognized as Jews who would join them — Israelites 
and proselytes thoroughly mingled by intermarriages — The 
law and the practice — Large influx from without — Meaning 
of "the Jews "generally 180 



CHAPTER XXVII. 

ARE CHRISTIANS PROSELYTES, OR CONVERTS, TO JUDAISM, THAT IS, TO 

THE RELIGION WHICH THE JEWISH CHURCH PROFESSED 

BEFORE THE DAYS OF CHRIST? 

Names and things — Six undeniable historic propositions 188 



CHAPTER XXVIII. 

DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? A VIEW OF THE QUESTION TAKEK 
DURING THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

Error of Watson, Nevin, Robbins, and others — Scripture testi- 
mony and history**... ...i....... ....v.... .,...« 191 



10 CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XXIX. 

DID THE JEWS EEJECT CHRIST? CONTINUED IN AN EXAMINATION OF 
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OP THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION. 

Biblical history — The Jewish people distinguished from the 
Sanhedrim — Blunders of many right here — The arrest, trial, 
and crucifixion the work of a few officials, in opposition to the 
people — Why were Judas's services needed? 198 



CHAPTER XXX. 

DID THE JEWS EEJECT CHRIST? CONTINUED IN AN EXAMINATION OP 

THE PARTICULAR CONDITION OF THE CHURCH AT 

AND AFTER THE ASCENSION. 

The great and only question of the times was, " Is Jesus our 
Christ, in whom we have always believed?" Up to this time 
belief could not attach to Jes,u^. But now to reject Jesus is 
to reject Christ 205 



CHAPTER XXXI. 

DID THE JEWS EEJECT CHRIST? CONTINUED IN AN EXAMINATION OF 

THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH FOR THIRTY YEARS OE 

so SUBSEQUENT TO THE RESURRECTION. 

None could have faith in Christ personally before the resurrec- 
tion — All the Jews staggered in their confidence for a moment 
— Difference between faith in a Christ and the Christ : so soon 
as faith could possibly be exercised, the Jews rally in immense 
numbers, multitudes, multitudes, great numbers — For many 
years they composed the entire Church — They were opposed 
by most of the Sanhedrim, a few officials, and others 212 



CHAPTER XXXII. 

THE JEWISH SEPARATION AND ADHERENCE, AND THE PERIOD NECES- 
SARY TO IT. 

'The -reasonableness and naturalness* of this pfocfes^^^2i.ui.'ifi.W*;v^23 



CONTENTS. 11 

CHAPTER XXXIII. 

THE OLIVE-TREES OF THE ELEVENTH OF EOMANS. 

Natural understanding of the parable — Great errors of Olshau- 
sen and Macknight 231 



CHAPTER XXXIV. 

THE PUTTIira OF I^EW WINE INTO OLD BOTTLES, ETC. 

Blunders of the theologians — Dr. Clarke's misunderstanding of 
the Pharisees and his utter inconsistency 239 



CHAPTER XXXV. 

THE CONVERSION OF JEWS: WHAT IS MEANT BY IT? 

No such thing as conversion from Judaism — Saul of Tarsus — 
Great and important errors of Drs. Nevin, George Smith, 
Macknight, and others , 244 



CHAPTER XXXVI. 

THE ESSENTIAL CHRISTOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

It contains all the religious doctrines that exist — Great error 
of Dr. John Dick — All Christian teaching rests essentially on 
the Old Testament — Quotations 248 



CHAPTER XXXVII. 

WHAT IS GOSPEL? 

Exposition and different meanings of the word — Practical use— 
"Error of Dr. John Dick — Henderson's Buck * 255 



12 CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XXXVIII. 

THE IfEW TESTAMEKT ELABOEATES THE OLD. 

No other precept or teaching in the New Testament — Great error 
of Dr. Dwight — Addition to Old Testament religion absolutely- 
forbidden 261 

CHAPTER XXXIX. 

Christ's true positioij in regard both to the old and new 
testaments briefly stated. 

The divine economy of salvation — Emmanuel — Importance of 
the Emmanuel-state of Christ — Christ was not a pope, but 
God manifest — Misnomer of essays called " Life of Christ" 268 

CHAPTER XL. 

THE CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES, AND THEIR COMMON INCORPORA- 
TION WITH THE JEWS IN THE BLESSINGS OP TRUE 
RELIGION, WAS ALWAYS A JEWISH DOCTRINE. 

Difference between Jewish doctrines and what many mistook 
them to be — The way in which doctrine was promulgated in 
those ages — The door of the Church always open from Abel 
till now, and all the world invited in 278 



CHAPTER XLI. 

**AN EYE FOR AN EYE AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH," WAS NEVER A 

JEWISH DOCTRINE. 

That is the law now — Christ is misunderstood by many 282 

CHAPTER XLII. 

WHEN AND WHERE DO WE FIND THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY? 

Error of Dr. Schaff, Neander, Gieseler, and others — Mistake of 
Nevin * 285 



CONTEISTTS. 13 

CHAPTER XLIII. 

EVEEY THIFO MAKIKG UP THE SYSTEM OP EELIGIOU, WHICH WE 

COMMONLY CALL THE GOSPEL, IS WEITTEH IN THE 

OLD TESTAMENT SCEIPTUEES. 

Proved by four hundred passages of Scripture, on three hundred 
different subjects, comprising all conceivable points of doc- 
trine 290 



CHAPTER XLIV. 

THE IDEA OF TWO EELIGIONS, WITH THEIE SUPPOSED 

AND DIFFEEENCES, TESTED; AND WHAT IS "PECULIAE" 
TO CHEISTIANITY EXAMINED. 

Errors of "standard" authors — Coleman's Ancient Christianity 
— Priesthood of Old Testament same as the New — Miserable 
doctrines of Dr. Coleman 298 



CHAPTER XLV. 

WAS EEVEALED EELIGION EVEE EESTEICTED TO ANY PAETICULAR 

PEOPLE ? > 

The entire Church policy of mankind is rational, "reasonable, 
and uniform 307 



CHAPTER XLVL 

THE ESSENTIAL SAMENESS OF THE CHUECH AND OF EELIGION, NOT- 
WITHSTANDING THE YAEIETY IN THE MODES OF WOESHIP 
IN DIFFEEENT TIMES AND PLACES. 

.Error of Mr. Watson — Does injustice to himself— What is samef 
Mistake of Dr. Doddridge ......,.„« 311 



14 CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XLVII. 

A VIEW OF THE EELIGIOUS CONDITION OF THE SAME IlfDIVIDUAL 

CHRISTIAN MEN WHO LIVED IN PALESTINE, BOTH BEFOEE 

AND AFTER THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST. 

How or why should they change their religion ? — Error of Dod- 
dridge, Dick, and Watson ^ 317 



CHAPTER XLVIII. 

CONCERNINa THE GREAT JEWISH APOSTASY. 

Error of Doddridge, Religious Encyclopedia, and Spectator ; also 
Watson, Buck, and others — The apostasy plainly pointed out 
— Modern Jews are simply apostate deists — Religious Ency- 
clopedia 323 



CHAPTER XLIX. 

CONCERNINa THE GREAT MESSIANIC QUESTION, AND THE PARTIES TO IT. 

Strange blunder of Neander — Either the Christians or rejecting 
Jews did most certainly apostatize — Isaiah vindicates the Old 
Testament from Neander's miserable theology — Nea.nder is the 
advocate of the rejecting Jews 332 



CHAPTER L. 

CONCERNING THE KINGDOM OF CHUIST : WHAT IS IT, AN© WHEN " DID 
IT BEGIN TO EXIST? 

More of Neander's strange theology — Watson not easily under- 
stood — Errors of Doddridge, Neander, and Clarke — ^^Benson in 
^- ^the same error ....» V^..::t..^.fc;,... S37 



CONTENTS. 15 

CHAPTER LI. 

EXPLAFATORY OF THE MISSIOI^ARY CHARACTER OF THE CHURCH 
AFTER THE COMIIsG OF CHRIST. 

At the right time the Church became more aggressive in its 
labors — The "calling of the Gentiles," as frequently taught, is 
a myth 341 



CHAPTER LII. 

EESPECTIUa THE " CALLING OF THE GENTILES:" WHAT IT WAS, AXD 

WHAT IT WAS NOT. 

Current teachings — The rational and natural spread of religion 
— Strange mistake of Benson and Doddridge — No exclusive 
Jewish grace — Benson and Doddridge prove the very opposite 
of what they teach — Misteaching of Brown's Religious Ency- . 
clopedia and contradictory teachings of Watson 345 



CHAPTER LIII. 

DOES THE HISTORY OF THE ISRAELITES COMPRISE THE WHOLE, OR 
WHAT PROPORTION, OF THE ANCIENT HISTORY OF RELIGION ? 

Watson teaches far beyond his knowledge and beyond the truth 
— Who was Job? and Melchizedek? and Balaam? 351 



CHAPTER LIV. 

"the DISSOLUTIOIir OF JUDAISM,'* AS HELD BY MEANDER AND OTHERS. 

Grossly inconsistent and contradictory teachings. i.* v. i-4-.vlTi^V^/«. 357 



16 CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER LV. 

CONCERNINa THE " BEGINNII^G AT JERUSALEM." WHAT WAS BEGUN 

AT JERUSALEM? 

They were to assert a historic fact, but preach no new doctrine.. 361 



CHAPTER LVI. 

CONCERNING "THE LAW OF MOSES." WHAT LS UNDERSTOOD BT THIS 

EXPRESSION ? 

Inconsistent teachings of Watson and Clarke — Strange blunder 
of Macknight and others 367 



CHAPTER LVII. 

THE SO-CALLED CEREMONIAL LAW WAS NOT ABOLISHED. 

The repeal of a divine law is impossible — Dr. Keith adopts 
Hume's very illogical argument — We have as much of a cere- 
monial law as the Jews had — Rationale of some of the ancient 
ceremonies — Home — Tappan's lectures, etc 373 



CHAPTER LVIII. 

CONCERNING THE JEWISH SUCCESSION, AND THE PECULIAR MARK IN 

THE JEWISH FEATURES. WHERE IS THE FORMER? AND WHAT 

IS THE CAUSE AND MEANING OF THE LATTER? 

General mistake as to what is meant genealogically by Jew — 
The Jewish mark does not designate descent from Jacob — 
Where is the succession of the Christian Jews ? — The mark of 

-Bishop Burnet*. <..i.«...«»k w. ^>.... Z^Q 



CONTENTS. 17 

CHAPTER LIX. 

THE HESTOEATION OF THE JEWS: BLUNDEB COERECTED. 

Who are to be restored? — Can this be determined? 392 



CHAPTER LX. 

THIS DOCTRINE OF SEPARATING BETWEEN THE " JEWISH " AND 
•'christian" RELIGIONS, LEADS TO AN OPEN REPUDIA- 
TION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. 

Neander — Coleman — Classing scriptures as to moral qualities — 
Schaff carries his arguments to their logical results, and calls 
the religion of the Old Testament monotheism — Jimeson 396 



* CHAPTER LXI. 

HOW ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND THE '' BETTER COVENANT ESTABLISHED 
UPON BETTER PROMISES"? 

Important error of Dr. Clarke — Contradicts his own teachings — 
Burkitt is very faulty — Underrates the Old Testament — Paul 
vindicated 401 



CHAPTER LXII. 

CONCERNING THE MIDDLE WALL OF PARTITION: OF WHAT SORT OP 

ECCLESIASTICAL MASONRY WAS IT BUILT ? AND FOR WHAT 

PURPOSE? AND HOW AND WHY WAS IT REMOVED? 

Views of Doddridge, Burkitt, Clarke, Macknight, and others — 
, Alarming remark of Macknight — Using a telescope to see a 
yard from you 406 



18 CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER LXIII. 

THE KELIGION OF MOSES AND OF CHRIST, OR JUDAISM AND CHRIS- 
TIANITY ** CONTRASTED." 

Dr. Clarke — Error of Wesleyan Catechism, No. Ill 411 



CHAPTER LXIV. 

WHAT RELIGION DID MOSES HIMSELF PROFESS AND TEACH? 

He professed and taught simple Christianity 416 



CHAPTER LXV. 

CONCERNING THE RELATION OF THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, AND CHRIST. 

Their order is that of sequence, not of time — This is the error 
of many — Olshsi^Msen's pre- Christians a gross error 420 



CHAPTER LXVL 

MATTHEW V. 17. 

The reading of this text, as explained by Burkitt and others, 
makes the declaration appear ridiculous — He did not abolish 
any ceremonial law — To fulfill means to teach — A rational 
reading — The Saviour did fulfill all the law and the prophets, 
as he said * 426 



CHAPTER LXVII. 

SOME REMARKS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 

A rational account of the dissensions spoken of — Blunder of 
Olshausen — The complaints of Paul were not for adhering to 
the Jewish religion, but for departing from it ., 431 



CONTENTS. ' 19 

CHAPTER LXVIII. 

timothy's eeligion was that of the old testament. 

Error of Doddridge — The rationale and simplicity of Timothy's 
religion — Great blunder of Dr. Clarke very easily seen 438 



CHAPTER LXIX. 

SOME OBSEEYATIONS OH THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 

Impracticable and unnecessary questions about this Epistle^ 
Easy answers to those questions — Difficulties of critics vanish 
when you view it more simply and rationally — A few plain 
suppositions — Broad and reckless departure from historic truth 
by Mr, Barnes, 443 



CHAPTER LXX. 

BARKES'S CAEICATUEE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 

His Introduction to Hebrews a miserable jumble of absurdities 

. and contradictions, practically repudiating the Old Testament.. 449 



CHAPTER LXXI. 

FAETHEE EEMAEKS O^S THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBEEWS. 

Most remarkable teaching of Macknight — Blunder of Ebrard- — 
True and rational meaning of animal sacrifice, and of St. 
Paul's explanations thereof 458 



CHAPTER LXXII. 

WAS JESUS CHEIST THE FOUNDEE OF A SYSTEM OF EELIGIOIT ? 

The history is that he was not — No new sacraments — They are 
"" natural to religion — Explained — Names explained — No new 
^ commandment — Explained— Simplicity and naturalness 465 



20 CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER LXXIII. 

SOME OBSERVATIOKS OlS A FEW THINGS IN THE EPISTLE TO THE 

EOMANS. 

Difference between the religion and what it was sometimes mis- 
taken to be — Writers confound these things — Dr. Clarke says 
Paul tried to get the Jews to renounce the word of God — Most 
alarming error of Dr. Taylor endorsed by Dr. Clarke — More 
errors of Clarke 472 

CHAPTER LXXIV. 

COEBECTION OP SOME POPULAR ERRORS RESPECTINa THE SPECIFIO 
RELATION BETWEEN JEWS AND GENTILES. 

Origin and reason of the distinction — Palpable blunder of Dr. 
Clarke — His wide departure from history — Relation of Jew 
and Gentile before the time of Christ and afterward — Change 
of names 479 



CHAPTER LXXV. 

CONCERNING THE CIVIL, OR POLITICAL, STATE OF THE JEWS, ANI> 

WHY AND HOW FAR THAT WAS A PECULIARITY OF 

THAT PERIOD OF THE CHURCH. 

The Jewish nationality was a providential measure — We know 
little of a theocracy — There were nominal Jews as there are 
now nominal Christians — Little if any difference in the two 
things 486 

CHAPTER LXXVI. 

BLUNDERS OP THEOLOGICAL WRITERS RESPECTING THE DESTRUCTION 
OF JERUSALEM, AND SOME OF ITS CONSEQUENCES. 

The war of Vespasian was against a revolt at Jerusalem, not 
against the Jews — The Samaritan and Hellenistic Jews not 
concerned in it — The Jewish State had long since ceased to 
exist — There was no dispersion of the Jews — Only the insurg- 
ents were dispersed 490 



CONTENTS. 21 

CHAPTER LXXVII. 

STRICTURES ON CONYBEARE AND HOWSON's " ST. PAUL." 

*' Christianity is put in opposition to the Old Testament, and 
must "subvert" it — False charges against the Jews — Misap- 
prehension of St. Paul, and of Jesus, and of the forward- 
pointing ceremonies — Many egregious errors in the book 494 



CHAPTER LXXVIII. 

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 

Misapprehension of Watson and others — No " infant Church" — 
No "primitive Church" — Errors of Macknight and others 501 



CHAPTER LXXIX. 

STRICTURES ON PALEY's EVIDENCES. 

Paley's first proposition is not true — Several other grand errors 
— The Old Testament is not " a system of folly and delusion " 
— Palpable perversions of biblical history by Paley^ — The 
Christianity which he proves to be true does not exist 510 



CHAPTER LXXX. 

THE GENERAL GROUND OCCUPIED BY PALEY, WHICH HE CALLS 

CHRISTIANITY. 

The "new faith," "new religion," "the gospel," etc., is a totally 
different thing from the morals and religion of the Old Testa- 
ment, and highly hostile thereto — Dr. Durbin is right 518 



22 CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER LXXXI. 

NOTICE OP A FEW POINTS IN CLARKE's COMMEI^TABT OH" TEE ACTS 
OF THE APOSTLES. 

Most rash and unwarrantable teachings — Misunderstands the 
attitude of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost — Jew- 
ish economy ».*..•♦..•»«.• 522 



CHAPTER LXXXII. 

BISHOP WIGHTMAN's MINISTERIAL ABILITT. 

He places the New Testament in hostility to the Old, and sur- 
prisingly violates historic truth >.,....»►«..»*...»»,. 52S 



CHAPTER LXXXIII. 

JUDAISM CONSIDERED, NOT AS THE ANTAGONIST OF CSIRISTIANlTYj^ 

BUT AS A RELIGIOUS SYSTEM DIFFERING THEREFROM, ANI> 

TERMINATING WHEN CHRISTIANITY BESAN. 

Its lessons are not primary, but finished, and highly classic — 
Church ceremonies — What waxing old means ...>.....»^^^^^^ 53^5 



CHAPTER LXXXIV. 

BRIEF EXPOSITION OF THE MANNER IN WHICH ST. PAUIi IQ S^-METIME^ 

MISREPRESENTED. 

Dr. Clarke and others make the apostle teach the yery reverse 
of what he does teach .»»»... ir^.. »»•»•• 543 



CONTENTS. 23 

CHAPTER LXXXV. 

A GLANCE AT FLEETWOOD'S LIFE OF CHEIST. 

Misunderstands the nature and use of religious ceremonies, and 
makes the Saviour repudiate the Old Testament 549 



CHAPTER LXXXVI. 

CATECHETICAL OF THE CHUECH 554 

CHAPTER LXXXVII. 

CATECHETICAL ^ 558 



CHAPTER LXXXVIIL 
COKCLUSIOB. 564 



PREFACE. 



I HAVE long since desired to correct some of the many 
very hurtful and untrue teachings which are so abundant 
in our current literature respectmg the Church, and to 
endeavor to show its easy and natural passage down 
through the period of the Saviour's advent. 

It is remarkable how an error, once set in motion, will 
pass along from man to man, from generation to generation, 
acquiring momentum as it goes. A current and familiar 
phraseology oftentimes covers up an error until it becomes 
a commonplace or matter of course, when the same thing, 
looked into, would be promptly set aside as an error. 

In the following treatise I am compelled to cross the 
views of far abler and better writers ; but I treat those 
authors with the utmost fairness, courtesy, and respect. I 
have been greatly profited by them— certainly by their 
.wisdom and true teachings— and I trust, also, even by their 
errors. But I take no uninspired man upon trust. My 

(26) 



26 PREFACE. 

business has been to discriminate between truth and error. 
I have dealt with the meaning, rather than the words of 
authors — ^that is to say, I have uniformly given to their 
words the simple, ordinary meaning the common reader 
would give them. While I have studiously and faithfully 
shunned every thing like hypercriticism upon their language 
myself, I have denied the right in their favor, of them- 
selves, to strain their language to make it fit the straight- 
edge of Scripture and reason. I take them to a court of 
chancery rather than to a court of law. 

Since I began this treatise, I have foimd these errors 
graver and far more numerous than I had any knowledge 
of before. They all lie in the same general channel. My 
plan at first was, to deal exclusively with quotations from 
Scripture, make my afiirmative arguments, and leave the 
reader to draw his own inferences as to other authors who 
might conflict with them. But I could not make it work 
in that way. I could do justice neither to my readers, to 
other authors whose views I wished to controvert, nor to 
myself And so I concluded to quote from a number of 
those authors, and oppose them openly. From this I would 
gladly shrink, but I must deal frankly and plainly, as well 
as justly and fairly. 

The quotations I have made, however, must be regarded 
as mere samples, picked up here and there almost at 



PKEFACE. 27 

random, with very little selecting. Every one will see 
they could be easily multiplied, if necessary. 

I hope I have a high and becoming regard for learning 
and authorship. For years I have sat, I trust, profitably, 
at the feet of wise men, where I have spent many delightful 
hours. Still, I have, I confess, not cherished a high regard 
for the selfish theologian who can see nothing in theological 
discussion but " our Church," and who imagines that an 
appeal to "standard authors" decides all questions, and 
elucidates all Scripture and all reasoning. Such a one will 
think I have undertaken a wonderfully hard task, and will 
wonder how I will succeed, for that some learned doctors 
have written diflferently. He need not be alarmed, at least 
before the time. He mistakes my undertaking. I ask no 
favors. I have not entered the list of disputants, nor under- 
taken to measure arms with the doctors. I am not contro- 
verting questions with somebody. I have lived long enough 
to know that religious controversy is, at least, an improfit- 
able employment. It tickles the passions and sectarian 
prejudices of a few thoughtless, brainless friends, when dex- 
terously handled, but seldom convinces the judgment of 
others. In this essay, at least, all Christians are my friends. 
I recognize no opponents. If any man can diifer mth me 
when I am read, he is quite welcome to do so. 

I have undertaken only to point out a number of plain 



28 PREFACE. 

errors — I might say palpable errors — whicli have been 
strangely overlooked; and, supposing me to be right in 
the matter, every one will say they are errors which must 
be corrected. I will not be dogmatical, but I will be firm, 
earnest, decisive. 

In current religious thought among Christians, the Old 
Testament and the New are placed too wide asunder. They 
are not separated by a straight line, much less by an open 
space. They blend, mingle, commingle. 

There is a common notion that there is a difierence — even 
an antagonism — ^between the Judaism of the Old Testament 
and the Christianity of the New, as separate systems of 
religion ; that the latter, by its superior truth and spirit- 
uality, triumphed over the former; that the Jews clung 
with tenacity to their religion of the Old Testament, not- 
withstanding it was superseded by a better; and that, to 
this day, they cling to it in hostility to Christianity, which 
is the religion of the New Testament. Judaism is held to 
be, in many respects, at least, a false system of religion, 
and is now lost sight of in the superiority of the gospel. 
There are two Dispensations of religion, it is said — the old 
and the new — or the Jewish and the Christian. The old 
was abrogated because it was bad or insufiicient, and the 
new is different and better. The Saviour and his apostles 
made great changes and a reformation in both the principles 



PREFACE. 29 

and modes of worship : finding the old dispensation not 
adapted to mankind, but special in its principles, it was 
brought to a close, and on its ruins the gospel, suited to all 
men, was set up. Judaism stood opposed to Christianity, 
and Christianity made war upon Judaism ; and this being 
a war of truth against error, the gospel succeeded. And 
so the Jews rejected Christ and his religion. "He came 
unto his own, and his own received him not." They stood 
in solid phalanx against Christianity, and stand there still. 
The Jewish religion, whicli was thus ignored and superseded 
by Christ, was made up chiefly of forms and ceremonies, 
and had a Ceremonial Law, which Christ abrogated as 
unnecessary and burdensome. At the time of Christ, the 
Jews, having so bad a religion, had all, or nearly all, 
become most abominably corrupt. One writer of no mean 
repute enumerates two who were pious ; and another of far 
higher fame, says they were all corrupt. 

The Christian sacraments, being Christian, and therefore 
new, of course originated then and there with Christ — a 
new religion, of course, requiring new sacraments and a 
new Church. 

These are some of the errors I hope to make plain to the 

reader. They can hardly be believed when once under- 

. stood. I hope to show the proper, natural identity 

of Judaism and Christianity; and also, that the Jews, 



30 PREFACE. 

upon whom, as a race, it has become so fashionable to 
bestow so much contumely, were — ^perhaps a full half of 
them— the most noble, pious, and magnanimous Christians 
that ever lived ; that they were the great friends and prop- 
agators of Christianity. 

These chapters ought also to show the proper, natural 
relation between the Old and New Testament Scriptures, 
and form an introduction to the latter, and prepare the 
mind for its more profitable perusal. Much of the New 
Testament books is mysterious to many, and is but poorly 
understood, because it is looked upon as introducing new 
principles of religion and ethics. 



ECCE ECCLESIA. 



ECCE ECCLESIA. 



CHAPTER I. 

CONCERNING RELIGION BEFORE THE FLOOD. 

Whatever God may have done, in the plenitude of his 
mercy, in relation to the salvation of men, there is one thing 
he has not done : he has not, either in whole or in part, 
changed or disturbed the constitution of man. But in all 
the variety of times, places, and circumstances in which sal- 
vation has been offered to men, the mode of doing so has 
been most wisely and wonderfully adapted to their constitu- 
tion and wants, as they were found actually to exist in 
those various conditions. 

Of the antediluvian world we know but very little ; and 
we sometimes almost forget that that period embraced a 
very considerable portion of the world's history up to the 
present time. Our chronological knowledge of that period 
is very defective and uncertain. The question of very 
-ancient chronology is beset with more difficulty and uncer- 
tainty than almost any other biblical question. Many of 
the best scholars have, after years of toil and research, 
2 (^ 



34 CONCERNINa RELIGION 

found themselves puzzled with many questions which did 
not admit of satisfactory solution. According to some 
modes of calculation, which look reasonable, the Hebrew 
text of the Bible places the flood in the year of the 
world 1656 ; and by the same modes of calculation the 
Septuagint places it in 2262, and Josephus in 2256. Vari- 
ous other calculations, based upon the same scriptures, 
vary still more widely, some making the period almost seven 
thousand years. 

Upon the whole, it is well understood among the learned 
who have studied this subject, that the difficulties to be 
encountered in this part of ancient chronology, and indeed 
for some time after the flood, are so many and so great that 
no satisfactory conclusion can be reached. The opinions of 
chronologists are, however, understood mostly to incline to 
the belief that the antediluvian period is probably about 
one thousand years longer than the shorter calculations 
make it. 

Now, in this long period, what particular, didactic relig- 
ious teaching did the world enjoy? We may have some 
faint idea of w^hat was needed, by inquiring what has been 
needed in this same regard in the last two or three thousand 
years. 

We look into the Scriptures and find that we have three, 
or perhaps four, expressions on this immediate subject. The 
account of the flood begins at the 11th verse of the 7th 
chapter of Genesis. The first religious teaching is in the 
15th verse of the 3d chapter, and is a part of the address 
of Jehovah to the serpent, in these words : " It shall bruise 
thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel " — referring to the 
seed of the woman. The next begins w^ith the 3d verse of 
the 4th chapter, and relates to the sacrifices of Cain and 
Abel. The third is the 26th verse of the 4th chapter, and 
gets forth the existence of the Church — that is, a separated 



BEFORE THE FLOOD. 35 

people calling themselves by the name of the Lord, or pro- 
fessing the name, or to be the people of the Lord. 

The first of these texts, about the seed, or posterity, of the 
woman bruising the head of the serpent, is supposed — and 
no doubt correctly — to refer to the atoning sacrifice of the 
Saviour, and it is all we have written directly on that subject 
in the antediluvian Scriptures; while of the entire history, 
religion, literature, and all of the entire period, we have but 
six short chapters. 

Now, the question is, are we to conclude that the entire 
sum of religious teaching for mankind, in the period referred 
to, was confined to these words, or words in some understood 
language of that equivalent ? This would suppose that in 
all that period the world was left just about totally without 
any religious teaching whatever. If this was their Bible or 
their revelation, then were they not without a Bible — that 
is, without divine religious instruction ? 

This, it seems to me, would be both unnatural and con- 
trary to the scope and philosophy of Biblical teaching. 
This brief statement about the head of the serpent and the 
heel of the woman's posterity, conveys to iis no very clear 
and distinct idea about religion and a Saviour. And I do 
not see how it could convey to them — the people of those long, 
long ages — any thing more definite or satisfactory. After 
giving to it forty difierent explanations, they would be left 
greatly in doubt if it had any prospective religious meaning 
at all. ,: 

I understand the text quite difierently. It is the lan- 
guage of an inspired historian, of after ages, giving us some 
information, in very few words, of what God taught the 
people in those early times. But how he taught it — ^to 
what extent it was explained, or how voluminous was the 
teaching, if done in words or didactic lessons, we are not 
informed. It is reasonable to suppose, from what Moses 



36 CONCERNINa RELIGION 

tells US, that the teaching so briefly alluded to by him, 
might have been ten times more voluminous than the entire 
volume of Scripture, and might have continued on, expla- 
nation upon explanation, for many ages. 

At this juncture we are told a Saviour was promised, and 
that faith in the divine veracity, that at a future time he 
would send us a Saviour, was required of men. 

In the Comprehensive Commentary we are told that one of 
the objects continually kept in view throughout the Old 
Testament is, " to direct men's attention, by the gradual 
development of the scheme of prophecy, to the future 
Messiah,'^ Not, surely, I think, to " the future Messiah,'^ but 
to the present Messiah. Surely there must have been some- 
thing more than a mere promise, or prophecy of something 
to be, away in the future. Christ must have been there — 
there present himself in all his saving power. 

I undertake to believe that, absolutely and without 
qualification, no man hath seen God at any time — neither 
Adam, nor Moses, nor any human person. I suppose that 
our present mode of existence, if nothing else, would render 
this absolutely impossible. The nature of man forbids that 
with his senses he may see, or hear, or otherwise apprehend 
God in his essential spirituality. 

I therefore conclude that if the first pair, or Cain, or the 
builders at Shinar, or Moses, or the apostles, ever had sensi- 
ble audience with the Deity, it was with Christ — God in 
Christ. Indeed, I suppose that God has never manifested 
himself to men in any other way or mode than in the 
person of the Son of God. 

Nevertheless, it was a part of the redeeming plan that, in 
the fullness of time — at the best time — Christ would appear 
in a most peculiar and wonderful manner — even to be bom 
of a woman, and live a human life. This manifestation 
was pointed forward to from Eden, and all along in the Old 



BEFORE THE FLOOD. 37 

Testament period. But there was not a future Messiah, in 
the sense often understood. 

Indeed, I suppose that faith — Bible faith — ^the faith which 
is unto salvation — always refers to something in the present, 
and not to something merely to he in the future. 

I know of nothing in either reason or revelation to dis- 
parage the belief that, in those days, religion was exten- 
sively and popularly taught and elaborated by hundreds and 
thousands of appointed ministers. That they possessed a 
verbal revelation, written or unwritten, is very certain ; and 
how far it went into details, we have no knowledge. 

We are told that the antediluvian people became very 
wicked ; so much so, that God destroyed them therefor with 
a terrible destruction. Then they must have had more 
religious instruction than merely that ^^the seed of the 
woman should bruise the serpenfs head J' In after ages we 
have a whole Bible, and millions of teachers, and yet it is a 
a hard matter to get the people to be religious. How could 
God hold men responsible for religious conduct without 
some religious instruction ? 

And, remember, it is nowhere intimated that there was 
any sort of restriction or briefness in these teachings. It is 
by no means the teachings they received which is related to 
us, but a bare remark of the historian respecting it. The 
common notion about an obscure prophecy seems utterly 
unnatural ; and at best it is a mere gratuitous assumption. 

We shall see, in subsequent chapters, how patiently labo- 
rious it was — so to speak — ^to instill into the minds of the 
Israelites, in after ages, the simple rudiments of religion. 
With all their advantages over the antediluvians, they 
needed line upon line and precept upon precept, day after 
day, year after year, and age after age. And yet it was 
with but slow steps that they advanced in theological 
knowledge. 



38 CONCERNING RELIGION 

In the 4th chapter of Genesis we read that in process of 
time Cain and Abel brought respectively their offerings to 
the Lord ; and that for some cause, not clearly stated, " the 
Lord had respect " to the offering of Abel, but not to that 
of Cain. From the manner in which this subject is intro- 
duced, we can but infer that worship was neither a new nor 
a rare thing. Cain is first spoken of as going through the 
forms of worship ; and from what we subsequently hear of 
him, we can hardly suppose that he was either an intro- 
ducer or leader in the worship of the true God. There 
must have been a well-understood religious system. And 
this must have been the result of much religious instruc- 
tion ; though it may have been given preternaturally, super- 
naturally, or miraculously. 

In the 26th verse we read that " then men began to call 
on the name of the Lord ;" and among the learned there 
is some variety of opinion as to its true meaning. One of 
these explications, and that which I favor is, that in process 
of time wickedness became so open and notorious that the 
truly pious began to separate, or dissociate from others, 
religiously, and so call themselves by a religious name or 
designation. And this, I think, may be regarded as the 
formation, in the first instance, of what we now call a 
Church. It was an open, public withdrawing of religious 
people to themselves, for religious association, and the open 
assumption of the name of the Lord. 

Whether we read this particular passage right or not, it 
is certain that at this time there was a well-known religious 
system among men, and that some were religious and some 
were not. Acceptable worship was rendered to the Almighty 
on the one hand, and the opposite of it on the other. 

And in the course of time — ^many centuries, however, 
after this — we read of one of the most remarkable cases of 
personal piety in the whole history of religion. 



BEFORE THE FLOOD. 89 

"And Enoch walked with God; and he was not; for 
God took him." This is wonderfully brief, and wonderfully 
sublime. It furnishes the highest evidence of antediluvian 
knowledge of faith in Christ ; for there is no other name 
given under heaven, among men, whereby we must be 
saved. 

And there are a few other glances, briefly set forth in the 
Bible, at the religious and irreligious state of things before 
the flood, which go to show that in those ages there must 
have been a well-settled religious system. Even a brief 
historic account of it would fill many volumes. 

Now, a very important question arises here : What system 
of religion did these people have ? Although there is very 
little said on the subject in the history, and but a very few 
incidental references made to it in Scripture, yet we are 
obliged to know that 'there can be but one system of human 
religion. All human salvation flows from the atonement 
of Christ. And surely this was not to the men of Old 
Testament times a Saviour who would -begin to exist 
away in some future age of the world, and work a sort of 
ex post facto, or retrospective salvation. They believed, as 
we do, in a present Saviour for themselves. 

But how much theological knowledge is necessary to sal- 
vation, is another question. Absolutely, I presume that 
none is necessary. Many are saved without knowing any 
thing about God or a Saviour. The rule is that each par- 
ticular person requires such measure of religious knowledge 
as may be reasonably within his reach. None is within the 
reach of idiots and infants ; but with others, no man can be 
saved, in the antediluvian or any 'Other age of the world, 
without as much as he may be reasonably able to reach. 

It is not likely that the antediluvians had any thing like 
"a religious literature ; but they had other and lesser means 
of acquiring and teaching their obligations to God. The 



40 CONCERNING RELIGION 

early, direct teachings from God were no doubt not at all 
popular, but were confined to the heads of tribes or fami- 
lies, who themselves became the teachers to those under 
them. In this way they must have had a very full knowl- 
edge of salvation by Christ. 

Worship is natural. But to worship intelligibly, in 
our fallen condition, is most clearly preternatural. For 
we know enough of ourselves to see, that without super- 
natural assistance, we could not approach an invisible and 
spiritual God. 

The very fact that Cain's worship was unacceptable, is 
proof of a well-known religious system. Cain knew better. 
His offering, like thousands now-a-days, was deistic — ^AbeFs 
was Christian. 

The population of the world at the time of the death of 
Abel was much greater than is supposed by many. Some 
estimate it at over thirty thousand, and others at four 
hundred thousand. The affairs of the world had progressed 
considerably. ' 

Much has been said about the reasons why the worship 
of Cain was rejected, and that of Abel accepted. We are 
told in Hebrews that that of Abel was offered " by faith." 
No doubt, in his judgment, Cain's offering was a very proper 
sacrifice. It was a deistical attempt to approach God 
directly, irrespective of a Saviour. The simple truth is 
apparent — that Cain's worship, in some way, no matter how, 
excluded Christ as the Saviour. It was therefore deism of 
some form. And Abel's worship was through Christ — ^that 
is, it was Christian. 

This offering of sacrifice, it is said, took place " in process 
of time," or, as many render it, " at the end of days." 
This was no doubt the Sabbath — the regular Sabbath- 
worship. 

The history tells us almost nothing about the antedilu- 



BEFORE THE FLOOD. 41 

vian people. It mentions only the names of a few kings, 
governors, or patriarchs, who were chiefs among the people. 
Enoch was a priest, a king, and a preacher. Noah, it is 
expressly said, was a preacher of righteousness. "The seed 
of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head." That lesson 
fully elaborated, is all that need be known on the subject of 
religion. It was known, and hence must have been exten- 
sively taught, among the people. 

The world, before the flood, was as natural as since. 
Men were as natural then as now. Many of our theological 
disquisitions respecting the world before the flood, are too 
mechanical — too much restricted — for a natural world. 
They lack expansiveness and comprehension of thought. 

I hardly know what Dr. Dmght means by saying that 
" Cain and Abel performed the public duties of the priest- 
hood for themselves.'* How for thenisehes f In the nature 
of the thing, there is but one kind of priesthood. 

Dr. Kitto tells us that " what strikes us at first is the 
remarkable fact of the existence of sacrifice at this early 
period after the fall." By remarkable, he means strange, or 
unexpected. 

I cannot think so. It looks to me perfectly natural, and 
seems in good keeping with all the analogies of the case. 
How long would God be expected to w^ait, and for what 
reason, and let the w^orld people, and increase, and go on, 
and increase in sin, before he would make known to man 
the conditions of salvation ? Why not begin the work of 
religion at once? 

It is next to incredible to suppose that God in Christ 
placed the world in a salvable state, under a gospel dispen- 
sation of grace and mercy, and then for two thousand years 
kept man in ignorance, or in partial ignorance, of these very 
blessings thus designed for his benefit. The faint, dim, and 
nearly imperceptible shadowings forth of enigmatical proph- 



42 CONCERNING RELIGION 

ecy in the early ages, and which opened slowly and gradu- 
ally through the twilight of centuries, and which in some 
thousands of years began to be read slowly and obscurely 
as it emerged out of the patriarchal or antediluvian ages, 
has an existence in the imaginations of fanciful theologians, 
but is neither read in the Book, nor deduced from sound 
reasoning. 

Fairbairn — Typology v. i., p. 230 — says that Adam and 
Eve "would readily imagine, when a scheme of grace was 
introduced which gave promise of a complete destruction of 
the adversary, with the infliction of only a partial injury on 
the woman's seed, that the whole of their offspring should 
attain to victory over the power of evil." 

That would depend upon how well they understood the 
Christian religion. 

Again he says: "Eve regarded her first-born as a precious 
gift of God, the beginning and the pledge of the ascend- 
ency that was to be won over the malice of the tempter. 
. . . .1 think it quite impossible," he continues, " in 
the circumstances, that the faith of Eve should have gone 
farther than this." 

And that, too, depends entirely upon the amount of 
religious teaching they received. If she knew nothing but — 
" It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel," 
then I think it quite impossible she could have had any 
thing like knowledge on the subject at all. The utterance 
of these mere words would have been to her an unmeaning 
riddle, and could be of no religious advantage whatever. 
. But such a supposition is out of the question. These 
brief words are used by the historian — ^they are his words, 
employed by /lim, in giving to us a brief and very synoptic 
account of the things which were done. 

The actual religious teachings of these ages, and the real 
amount of religious knowledge which the people possessed 



BEFORE THE FLOOD. 43 

in detail, is one thing; but the brief historic statement 
about it, which Moses made, in the account he wrote, is 
quite another. The latter we have, and it is all we have. 
The history of religious action and teaching from the birth 
of Christ to the present hour, might be written in twenty 
words ; but it w^ould be a very brief outline. 

And if any one inquires why, upon this hypothesis, Moses 
did not write more fully, I can reply only by asking, why 
did not Daniel and Paul write a hundred times more than 
they did, historic of the religion of their times? Certainly 
not because there was no more to write, but, I suppose, 
in each case, because that which was written was deemed 
sufficient for the purpose in hand. 



44 RELIGION FROM THE 



CHAPTER II. 

RELIGION FROM THE FLOOD TO ABRAHAM. 

We have now another long period almost entirely without 
a written history. From the flood to the call of Abraham 
we have but about three chapters ; and the length of this 
period, too, is uncertain. Like the former period, there is 
no known mode of determining the length of it. It may, 
perhaps, be set down as probable that it was either about 
three hundred years, or about twelve hundred years. Among 
learned men who have taken pains to look deeply into this 
question, I believe the opinion preponderates in favor of the 
longer period, though the shorter is most commonly in use. 
The question will most probably never be settled. 

There was now but a single family of people on the face 
of the earth, and they were all together, and all intimately 
known to each other ; and it was a religious family. We 
had then a pious world. They all knew the reasons why 
the Lord so terribly destroyed mankind. No people could 
have had a better or higher appreciation of the difierence 
between sin and holiness than they. They were pious 
before the deluge, and now having passed through its terri- 
ble scenes, their gratitude to God must have been over- 
whelming. We are now prepared to read the 20th verse 



FLOOD TO ABRAHAM. 45 

of the 8tli chapter of Genesis. Nothing could be more 
natural, more seasonable, or in better keeping with the 
spirit of the times and surrounding circumstances. 

"And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord, and took of 
every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered 
burnt-offerings on the altar." 

What sublime language! What holy and pious con- 
duct! All mankind are seen prostrate before the Lord. 
Nothing had been seen in Eden to compare with it, for 
there there was no strong predisposition to sin to contend 
against. But these had overcome the world. They were 
not holy by primeval innocence, but according to the 
Christian religion. 

It is, I think, a short-sighted idea to suppose that Noah 
and his family were half-heathen — that they knew nothing 
about Christianity — had received only a few brief, laconic 
words of religious teaching, and they of a very hidden, 
obscure, and uncertain meaning. It is contrary to reason, 
and I see no support in Scripture for it. 

Noah must have been well acquainted with the wide-spread 
wickedness before the deluge, and with the causes which 
led to it. He knew very well that it was not owing to any 
defect in the religious system, nor in the mode of the divine 
teachings. It was owing to the wickedness of man. 

But still, it is a question of importance, why it was that 
the Christian religion did not succeed then, or was less 
likely to succeed than in after years, it being all the while 
the same, and man being the same. 

It is certain religion did fail, as a general thing, before 
the flood. And it failed again in the period of which we 
are now speaking, from Noah to Abraham ; or at least, it 
very nearly failed. And the same thing may be said of 
the Israelites previously to the exodus. The causes of these 
failures are not to be looked for in the religion itself, for it 



46 RELIGION FROM THE 

was always the same ; but in the manner of its teaching, 
and the general circumstances of the world. 

Immediately after what is said respecting the worship of 
Noah, after the subsidence of the flood, we have a clear 
statement of the true character of this worship. It is said: 
**And the Lord smelled a sweet savor ; and the Lord said 
in his heart, I will not any more curse the ground for man's 
sake." It was a worshiping age, looked upon favorably by 
the Almighty. 

But, as in the former case, the religious teachings were 
directed to the people generally. The religious opportuni- 
ties of all were sufficiently good, and to all human appear- 
ance the repeopling of the world seemed to promise the 
most favorable religious results. Religion was the regular 
order of things. 

The world, in this period, was not as some theologians 
seem to have it, a cramped up, mechanical sort of age, 
devoid almost of history and of incident. Some seem 
almost to think that the building of the tower of Babel, 
the confusion of tongues, and a little hunting of one Nim- 
rod, was pretty much all that occurred from the flood to 
the sending out of Abraham. But the world was really as 
natural in all things then as now. The increase of the 
people was no doubt very rapid. But little of the history 
has come down to us — still it had a history. Noah and 
his three sons were men of mature age and large experi- 
ence ; and their wives, we have good reason to believe, were 
women well versed in the affairs of life, and good patterns 
of piety and religion. Every thing moved on naturally. 
The years were as long then as now, though not so well 
computed. A thousand years then was as long as from the 
days of Charlemagne to the present time. Men pursued 
the affairs of life, their interests and avocations, then as 
now. The affairs of the Church, and those of the State, 



FLOOD TO ABRAHAM. 47 

and social and domestic concern, engaged the minds of men 
then as now. 

The civil government was of a patriarchal form; but 
after a few hundred years, a portion of it, at least, became 
monarchical under the bold leadership of that great mon- 
arch, Nimrod. He was no doubt a great man — bold, 
daring, and wicked. 

And so, with all the social and religious advantages 
attendant upon Noah and his immediate posterity, men 
were sinners, liable to temptation ; and without the ecclesi- 
astical advantages of later times, irreligion spread itself 
abroad wonderfully, so that by the time of Abraham the 
Church was probably small, though we have no historic 
account of it beyond a brief allusion to Job and Mel- 
chizedek. 



48 A BRIEF EXPOSITION OF THE 



CHAPTER III. 

A BRIEF EXPOSITION OF THE ABRAHAMIC ERA OF THE 

CHURCH. 

The Adamic and Noachian periods of the Churcli — as 
they might be called — ^had passed away. In these two periods 
religious obligation was presented merely spontaneously and 
universally to mankind ; that is, directly to each individual 
person, but generally we may suppose without those safe- 
guards which connect with or grow out of social and recipro- 
cal obligation and watchfulness. And twice this mode of 
propagating religion had failed. 

It now pleased the Almighty, in addition to the presenta- 
tion of more direct, personal religious obligation, as between 
each person and God, to place the Church m a state of more 
social exclusiveness, where direct and universal reciprocal 
oversight and interchangeable obligation would work a 
salutary influence upon personal religion. 

The naked laws and obligations of Christianity are one 
thing, but the presentation of those claims to the consciences 
and conduct of men is another. Those claims are presented 
under more or less favorable circumstances. It is best for 
success that they be so presented as to form a nucleus, or 
central point around which strong attachments may be 



ABRAHAMIC ERA OF THE CHURCH. 49 

easily formed, and from which religious teachings may 
radiate. 

The strong disposition to worship, originally implanted in 
man, remains unmoved; but his sinful disposition causes 
him to look for some other object of worship than the living 
God. So that in order to place the claims of religion favor- 
ably before him, it is necessary to guard him against tempta- 
tions to idolatry. 

The question has been frequently asked, why this great 
favoritism should be extended to the descendants of Abra- 
ham, in preference to all other people. I do not view the 
dealings of God with them in that light. It was not a favor 
conferred upon them for thdr sakes. There must needs be 
a nucleus, or central point, established somew^iere ; and the 
name of the family in which this nucleus should be formed, 
might as well be Abraham as any other name. 

Nor do I subscribe to the teachings of some, that at and 
after the calling of Abraham all true religion was confined 
to the Israelites. The history of the Jews gives us a suc- 
cession, or genealogical account, of a certain ecclesiastical 
line from those days down to Christ. But what or how 
much religion — true religion, and of course revealed relig- 
ion — there was outside this line, the history does not inform 
us. This subject will be brought forward again, and de- 
scribed more largely in a more appropriate place. 

The obligations of religion, however, rested universally 
on all men. The highest religious attainment was open to 
all. And the Jewish ecclesiastical system was for the 
general benefit of mankind, and not for the particular 
advantage of any classes. 

The necessity for a better ecclesiastical arrangement was 
not found — as some seem to find it — in the mere fact of a 
general and wide-spread idolatry among mankind, but 
rather in the social position which religion assumed. It 



50 ' A BRIEF EXPOSITION OF THE 

was not enough that salvation should be made possible. 
This was long since done. Extrinsic facilities and subsidiary- 
helps were now to be given. 

Nothing was more wise, natural, or philosophic, than 
the Abrahamic arrangement. Wide -spread nationality 
produces severalty of interest, gives room for party strife, 
and stimulates to aggrandizement and ambition. And 
hence the necessity for the social exclusiveness seen in the 
Jewish community. And hence the bondage in Egypt, and 
many other historic incidents we meet with in their com- 
monwealth. They had a peculiar national character, a 
peculiar civil polity, and peculiar ecclesiastical forms. 

It was important, also, that the Israelitish mind should 
be susceptible — not preoccupied or swayed in favor of 
governmental forms or national prejudices. And so, as an 
anonymous writer remarks, "They were as new material 
prepared to receive the moulding of a master-hand, and the 
impress of a governing mind.'' 

Miracles were also introduced among the Israelites at the 
right time, and under the proper circumstances. A miracle 
is simply an act of God's immediate power in matters where 
he generally works through secondary agencies. An act 
of almighty power, unconnected with known causes, and 
unaccommodated to man's feeble capacity, is to man a 
miracle. And without religious instruction being accompa- 
nied by such acts of God, it would be simply impossible for 
a rational man to believe any system of religion to be 
divine. Outside of immediate human experience, miracle 
is the only demonstrative proof that man can receive of the 
truth of any religious system ; and it can demonstrate the 
truth only to the man who witnesses. the miracle. But the 
man who does not witness a miracle, can receive demon- 
strative evidence of the truth of religion in no way but by 
experience. 



ABEAHAMIC ERA OE THE CHURCH. 51 

The miracles of Moses, preparatory to the departure of 
the Israelites from Egypt, were peculiarly fitted to their 
circumstances. 

And now commenced a system of religious instruction 
strikingly appropriate to such a community, and in the 
condition in which the world then was. And in looking 
briefly into some of their teachings, we must remember that 
those people were not then instructed in religious knowledge 
as w^e are now. Now religious knowledge is merely coirir 
municated from one man to another. But they had so 
lapsed into idolatr}^, through the corrupting influence of 
surrounding nations, that they needed to be taught the very 
germinal ideas of religion. In the space of a few hundred 
years they had most wonderfully lost a knowledge of true 
religion. And, as the human mind is constituted, knowledge 
of any kind is received progressively, and in no other way. 
No full system can be grasped at once. It must be given grad- 
ually — ^building one thought upon another. This rule was 
observed systematically. And so, by noticing these teach- 
ings carefully, any one may see they were at first merely 
the being of one God, See Ex. iii. 13, 14, etc. This was a 
blow at the very root of idolatry ; and in the very begin- 
ning of Moses's administration it was well fixed in the 
Israelitish mind. And in the circumstances of their deliver- 
ance from a cruel bondage, and the overthrow of the hosts 
of Pharaoh at the Eed Sea, they were most powerfully in- 
structed in the doctrine of the poiuer and goodness of the 
God of Israel. They saw, too, that God's power and good- 
ness were exerted toward them, most powerfully and won- 
derfully effecting their deliverance. This moved their 
affections, naturally drawing their hearts in love toward 
God. These were the first lessons. And all the circum- 
stances surrounding them were most aptly calculated to 
impress the mind and heart of the people. 



52 EXPOSITION OF THE ABRAHAMIC ERA. 

And when Moses set out in the course of administering 
the affairs of Jehovah to his people, thus began — or rather, 
continued on a larger and better scale — the system of in- 
struction which was so well fitted to prepare them for the 
communication of Christianity to mankind. For it must 
be borne in mind, that this was the great design in raising 
up the Israelitish people — that they might become the pio- 
neers in difiusing true religion over the world; a design 
which, in the wonderful providence of God, they have ful- 
filled so nobly and so well. 



NECESSITY FOR ORIGINATION OF IDEAS. 53 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE NECESSITY FOR THE ORIGINATION OF IDEAS IN PLANT- 
ING THE TRUE RELIGION MORE SOLIDLY. 

There is no difficulty in the origination of such ideas as 
pertain to visible or sensible things. The very act of seeing, 
hearing, feeling, or otherwise sensibly perceiving any thing, 
fixes the idea — some idea — instantly in the human mind. 
But how are you going to fix in the mind a clear and dis- 
tinct idea of something which is not in anywise an object 
of sense ? Let any one attempt to thinh distinctly of some- 
thing of which he has not heard, has not seen, felt, tasted, 
nor smelled, and he will at once find that he has under- 
taken what he cannot perform. 

Now, neither God nor religion is an object of sense. How, 
then, is a man to be brought to think clearly and distinctly 
about these things ? How can he comprehend their princi- 
ples or understand their rationale ? 

But there is another question which steps in before this : 
How came the Israelitish mind to be so exceedingly igno- 
rant of the principles of religion as we find it at the time 
of the exodus? 

There are two considerations which, taken together, might 
satisfactorily answer this question, and there are, no doubt, 
others of which we have little or no knowledge. First. 



54 THE NECESSITY FOR THE 

From about tlie time of the death of Joseph, until the 
deliverance under Moses, the Israelites were in circum- 
stances exceedingly unfavorable to religion. They were 
in close and cruel bondage to a very idolatrous people. 
Secondly. The religion of mankind, previously to those 
ages, had no doubt much more of piety than theology 
in it. The simple rudiments of religion are few, and easily 
learned. The religious teachers of the world were, most 
probably, few in number, comparatively ; and their teach- 
ings werCp no doubt, from necessity or otherwise, confined 
chiefly to the simple elements of personal piety. 

But now, in the progress of things, it becomes necessary 
that religion should be based more upon its solid theo- 
logical principles, with more of a practical rationale. And 
it was perhaps deemed best in the wisdom of God that this 
rational theology should be at the first introduced amongst 
a people whose mind, in matters of religion, was nearly a 
blank. 

The human mind, in the various stages of its progressive 
enlightenment, needs to have tl^e reasons underlying relig- 
ious truth, so as to grasp and comprehend them. And 
hence the necessity just now of originating and fixing in the 
mind a number of fundamental theological truths. How 
w^ell any of them may have been known in previous ages, 
or to how many or how few they may have been known in 
any particular age, the history does not inform us. 

And so the origination and inculcation of abstract relig- 
ious ideas became necessary in the Israelitish mind. 

After getting well hold of the simple ideas of God's 
being, and of his power, and the notion that for some rea- 
sons, or under some circumstances, this power is exerted in 
their behalf, and as their friend and protector, it becomes 
necessary to establish in the mind some substantial knowl- 
edge of some of the other divine attributes. And one 



ORIGINATION OF IDEAS. 55 

of the first questions to solve in the process is, How are they 
to gain a knowledge of God's justice, or the demerit of sin 
in the divine mind? It is a very easy thing for us now to 
talk about this matter, and to communicate ideas on the 
subject from one to another. But suppose the idea did not 
• exist? It is not the general question of the demerit of sin we 
are looking after, but — How does God look upon sin ? This 
question is to be answered by impressions to be made upon 
the mind of the Israelites. 

And here we may lay down the broad principle, that 
there is no way by which a person in authority, divine or 
human, can manifest his opposition to transgression but by 
affixing a penalty thereto. Indeed, the human mind is so 
constituted that it can receive the impression of demerit in 
no other way than by some kind of punishment or suffering 
as the consequence of wrong-doing. And farther: the 
severity of the punishment will graduate the degree of op- 
position to sin, and fix the standard of holiness in the law- 
giver. 

How they were enabled to embrace the notion of death 
and destruction as the penalty for sin — they themselves 
being justly obnoxious to such punishment — and yet they 
being spared this penalty, will be looked at when we come 
to glance at their sacrifices as part of their worship. 

It was necessary, also, that they should be impressed with a 
proper sense of the Divine Majesty, and the profound rever- 
ence ^\dth which they should regard and approach him. 

Let it be remembered, that they had become exceedingly 
idolatrous in their notions of worship. Their idols were 
therefore objects of common familiarity. And it was now 
necessary to impress them with a proper sense of the awful 
and unapproachable majesty of the divine character. 

-This was effected, primarily at least, in the scenery sur- 
rounding Mount Sinai at the time of the giving of the law. 



56 THE NECESSITY EOR THE 

The mountain was made to tremble to its very base. A cloud 
of darkness covered its summit, from which the lightnings 
leaped out and the thunders rolled, and there was " black- 
ness and darkness and a tempest ;" and no man was allowed 
to touch the mountain lest he should die. All this was well 
calculated to impress them powerfully with the feeling of 
awe and reverence toward God, and of admiration for the 
divine character. 

The question is not how these things would affect us ; 
but how would they impress a people in their condition, 
with their low and groveling views of divinities, with which 
they had .been in the habit of the most common and besotted 
familiarity. 

Notice the first impression: ""When the people saw it, 
they removed and stood afar off, and they said unto Moses, 
* Speak thou unto us, and we will hear ; but let not God 
speak unto us, lest we die.' And Moses said unto the 
people , ' Fear not, for God has come to prove you, and that 
his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.' " Ex. 
XX. 18, 19. 

And here, as in hundreds of other places in Scripture, 
we are by no means to understand that merely these precise 
words were used by the people and by Moses. The history 
is intended to give us, very briefly, the gist, the main 
thing, or substance of what was done. 

Such indirect, symbolic representation as this, is always 
necessary in the origination of ideas. Where ideas exist, 
there are words which can be used to communicate them ; 
but where there are no distinct ideas, of course there can 
be no words, for words are but the oral signs of existing 
ideas. So we use pictures to represent many things to 
children, because they have not or do not understand the 
words. 

Another very important thing for the Israelites to know 



ORIGINATION OF IDEAS. 57 

was, that God is holy — immaculate — ^ure, absolutely. Now, 
how were they to get hold of this idea? The difficulty 
was, that there was not an object in the material world 
around them that could be used to represent it. It must, 
therefore, be worked up by a rising series, or scale, by 
which one thought may be built upon another. 

At an early period, the animals known to them were 
divided into two classes, clean and unclean. The one class 
then was purer, better, more excellent than the other ; and 
those only were to be offered in sacrifice. And it must not 
only be of this class, but a selection of the best — without 
spot or blemish. And then it was to be washed with clean 
water, and thus rendered free from all internal taint or 
blemish. And then it was to be ofiered, not by the common 
people, but by a select class of persons, set apart for that 
special purpose. And then he was to be washed and attired, 
in some cases, if not in all, and be thus peculiarly fitted for 
an approach to the Almighty. And thus the process of one 
comparison after another very naturally gave them the 
notion of the highest earthly purity ; and the reasons for it 
transferred the idea to the immaculate character of God. 

And this thought, thus set in motion, was carried forward 
through all the machinery of the Levitical service. The 
camp was purified, the utensils became sacred, and were 
purified and repurified; and so purification proceeded 
upward, step after step, until the convergence of its rays 
intensified the idea of purity ; and so, in their minds, God 
became the focal center of unearthly and immaculate 
purity ; and thus the purity of God became a doctrine with 
them. 



58 THE JEWISH SACRIFICES- 



CHAPTER V. 

THE JEWISH SACRIFICES — A BRIEF SKETCH OF THEIR 
NATURE AND DESIGN. 

Never was a wiser or more truly philosophical system 
for mankind drawn out and set in motion than the Levitieal 
ritualism. 

Whatever may be the degree of perfectness to which 
human knowledge may have attained on any particular 
subject, it is very natural for men to conclude that they 
have reached, or very nearly reached, its acme. And so 
with the science of religion. The common sentiment is, 
that in this age we know it perfectly. This was the common 
sentiment in all former ages, and it will no doubt be so in 
many ages to come. There is much yet to be learned 
about it. 

We have, some of us, a pretty clear idea of what is called 
the cross, in religion, and of sacrifice — of atonement and 
of redemption. And yet we have pretty clear proof that 
our own ideas on these subjects are not well settled, in the 
fact .that, in endeavoring to communicate them, we reach 
and strain from one synonym to another with a conscious 
lack of perspicuity in both idea and language. We look 
back into the days of the Israelites when there were no such 
words as atonement, propitiation, expiation, redemption, 
satisfaction, vicarious suffering, etc., and we know the reason 



SKETCH OF THEIR NATURE AXD DESIGN. 59 

why there were not. It was because there Tvere no ideas in 
the mind rendering such words necessary for their trans- 
mission. If they had had the ideas, they would soon have 
manufactured the words; and then, as now, there would 
have been no necessity for the circuitous and seemingly 
cumbrous system of teaching which we see in the machinery 
of the Levitical ritual. 

At this remove of time, and with the little history we 
have, we can but poorly understand all the natural laws, 
Avith their reasons, of the Jewish sacrifices. Sacrifice, as a 
mode of worship, and at that time the best means practica- 
ble of teaching Christianity, was instituted, as we have 
seen, when men began to worship, immediately after the fall. 
The enlargement and greater perfection of the system at 
Sinai was eminently calculated to lead the mind on to a 
farther knowledge of Christ and religion. 

Mr. Watson's Biblical and Theological Dictionary, Arti- 
cle Sacrifice, tells us that sacrifices were instituted " to pre- 
figure the sacrifice of Christ." This expression, though not 
positively untrue, is so definite and sweeping as to lead to a 
\vrong conclusion. It is very true that sacrificial worship 
was, from the first, intended to prefigure the sacrifice of 
Christ ; but it was certainly intended to do much more. It 
afforded primary instruction in all the principles of religion. 
Perhaps there is not a doctrine of religion which was not 
interwoven into and taught by its lessons. 

These sacrifices, particularly in the preparation of the 
victims, were eminently calculated to instruct the mind in 
a knowledge of God's immaculate purity, and the holiness 
of his person and character ; and it is difficult, if not im- 
possible, to conceive in what other way these important 
ideas could have been established in the mind of a people 
conditioned as the early Israelites were. Human language 
could not do it, for there was none adequate to the task^ 



60 THE JEWISH SACRIFICES — 

nor, in the nature of things, could be, until the ideas should 
•first be formed. Language does nothing but express ideas 
already in existence. It is but a very slight and indirect 
help in the formation of original thoughts. 

There are many abstract ideas of moral and intangible 
things which come into the mind very readily from our own 
experience, such as fear, love, compassion, hatred, etc., 
subjectively considered. But religious ideas, save a few 
very primary ones, do not come from ourselves : they are 
foreign to our experience. But in the Jewish sacrifices, we 
see brought to view all the elements of Christianity. 

The variety of this sacrificial machinery, but dimly seen 
in faint outline by us, was the language of sense, of feeling, 
and impression, acted out in the most solemn manner, to 
teach men their true relation to God. The idea that it was 
a mere system of worship, prescribed to Jews, unsuited to 
mankind at large, and that after fulfilling a particular 
object it was "abrogated," and some other forms of worship 
were set up in its place, is, in my view, to say the least of it, 
derogatory to the wisdom and stability of God. 

The Israelitish ritual was arranged and set up, not for 
Jews, but for mankind. In that age of the world, with the 
lights and the means of teaching which then existed, it was 
the only way in which Christianity could have been suc- 
cessfully taught to men. It met the human constitution on 
its own ground, and worked in its own channels by natural 
processes. It was not something different from Christianity, 
as some vainly suppose, but it was Christianity itself, 
worked up from its very rudiments. 

When a boy begins to learn Mathematics, he uses tables 
and didactic rules; but after a time, he brings his simple 
problems to conclusions without their formal use. But he 
neither abrogates them nor enters upon a better system. 
The use of cumbrous tables and rules fixed his mind upon 



SKETCH OF THEIH NATURE AND DESIGN. 61 

the very truths in question, and he now reaches them with 
less labor than before. The principles in the system of 
Jewish sacrifices are used now by Christians everywhere. 
Where actions and symbols were formerly used, language is 
noAV used with greater facility. 

See the Israelite, with his victim, coming to sacrifice. It 
is perhaps a lamb, carefully selected from a select portion 
of a very select kind ; and in this way he is now about to 
approach the God of his deliverance. He solemnly and 
formally lays his hands upon his head, figuring the transfer 
of sin from himself to the innocent victim ; and he leans 
himself upon it, figuring reliance and trust ; the innocent is 
slain, and sufiers, not in his eye by any means merely as an 
animal, but vicariously, in the room and stead of himself. 
It was, symbolically, loaded with his iniquities, and dies — ■ 
the innocent for the guilty. Thus he acknowledges before 
God his own ill desert — ^that he has sinned and is worthy 
of death ; and he entreats God to accept the sacrifice of the 
victim instead of his own sacrifice, which he thus solemnly 
acknowledges would be just. 

And now, if you remove a few chronological periods 
onward, you will see the same thiJigs taught verbally. 
Nothing is changed but the language. The Christian under- 
stands it as the Israelite did ; though quite likely neither 
understands it perfectly in all its parts, though each 
understands it in his sphere, and according to his circum- 
stances. 

It was in rather a legal than a real and practical sense, 
it may be said, that the sacrifices " prefigured Christ." It 
was not until long after the lengthy and laborious teachings 
of the prophets, age after age, that the Jews came to know 
and understand much about a Messiah ; and even up to the 
very period of his appearing, they were but poorly versed 
in his, character and oflaces ; and indeed, at the present day, 



62 THE JEWISH SACRIFICES — 

this may be said of thousands who are called Christians. 
The sacrifices taught religion first, and Christ afterward. 

In considering these ancient modes of worship, and of 
religious teaching, two or three things should be kept 
prominently in view. 

First They were by no means always the same; nor 
was it all done at one time and one place. It was 
a natural, and not a mechanical system. I do not see 
how any of the particular descriptions of these things 
of authors can be correct, because they were practiced in 
different countries and in different ages very differently. 
They are found among a great variety of people, in various 
countries, and stretching over many ages and a great variety 
of circumstances. Sometimes they were more or less con- 
nected with civil polity, and generally they had some 
connection with political customs. 

Secondly, But still the sacrifices, as well as the entire 
Levitical economy, had in all times and in all countries one 
general aim and purpose. They embodied the principles 
of true religion, and taught and illustrated them as well as 
it could be done in the nature of things, in an early ante- 
Messianic condition of the Church. 

Thirdly, These teachings were before the advent of Christ. 
They served the Church then in the same way as the New 
Testament serves it now ; though they were by no means 
profitable to the same extent. To look at them rightly, we 
must suppose ourselves to be ante-Messianic Christians, and 
to be without the teachings which Christ's advent shed upon 
the world ; and this is a very difficult thing to do. It is 
hard for a man to imagine himself to be ignorant of what 
he knows. 

Fourthly, "Worship by sacrifice was, and still is, Christian 
ivorship. You may tell us of two dispensations by giving 
that very ambiguous and unphilosophic word a better repu- 



SKETCH OF THEIR NATURE AND DESIGN. 63 

tation than the character it acquires from philology ; but. 
the word of God knows no religion but Christianity ; and 
in the different ages and circumstances of mankind it is 
taught by whatever means chances to be most appropriate 
and useful. 



84 MOSES — HIS TRAITS OF CHARACTER 



CHAPTEE VI. 

CONCERNING MOSES, WITH SOME OF HIS TRAITS OF CHAR- 
ACTER AND FITNESS FOR HIS FUTURE OFFICE. 

Moses was one of the most remarkable men of ancient 
history. He occupies a very large space in it. From 
infancy his life was most singularly providential. Josephus 
says he was all his early life an object of jealousy and 
suspicion at the court of Pharaoh, and that the king's 
daughter, who adopted him, was his only substantial friend 
and defender. He mentions an important event in his 
history which is not alluded to in the Bible. He says that 
some years after Moses became a man, the Egyptian king 
became involved in a war with the Ethiopians, and his 
armies were much worsted and discouraged, and in his 
extremity he was reluctantly forced almost to place Moses 
at the head of his troops, and that, by great prudence and 
forecast, Moses defeated the Ethiopians, and restored peace 
to Egypt. 

And this very act, he says, of saving Pharaoh and his 
country, increased former jealousies and fears against Moses, 
by the king and his courtiers, and this was in a great 
measure the cause of his flight from Pharaoh. 

In this retirement from public life, he seemed casually to 
fall in with Jethro, the prince and priest of Midian. 

The question of Moses's religious education has been 



AND FITNESS FOR HIS FUTURE OFFICE. 65 

solved by critics by attributing it to the teachings of his 
religious mother, who was his nurse. But this supposes 
what would seem to require some proof. Is it to be assumed 
that his mother was a religious woman ? If so, she was an 
extraordinary exception to the general rule. The Israelites 
had mostly become idolaters. It seems to me much more 
natural to suppose that whatever of religious character he 
derived from his people, he acquired by familiar intercourse 
with them. He, it was true, was a member of the royal 
family, and the Israelites were slaves in that country, but 
this did not prevent him from free intercourse among them, 
and of learning what little there was to learn of true religion 
from them. They all lived, and thought, and mixed, and 
communicated, as other such like people would naturally 
do. His intercourse with them was certainly not confined 
to his mother, whether she was religious or not. 

We learn enough of him to warrant the conclusion that 
his entire early life, up to probably the time when he w^as 
placed at the head of Israel, gave him the very best pos- 
sible advantages for becoming fitted by knowledge and 
e:^perience for his important trust. 



66 THE JOURNEY IN THE WILDERNESS, 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE JOURNEY IN THE WILDERNESS, WITH SOME OF ITS 
REASONS AND RESULTS, ESPECIALLY RESPECTING 
IDOLATRY. 

The very brief account which we have of the journey 
through the wilderness, as that country was called, was 
written, it must be remembered, not for the use and benefit 
of those persons who participated in the events, so much as 
for the instruction of those who should live afterward. 
The history was preserved for the general good of man- 
kind. 

At the time of the exodus, there were few people in the' 
world not wholly^ or in a large measure, given to idolatry. 
The Israelites were probably as free from it as most other 
people; though on this point — the religion of the world 
outside of the Israelites, as we shall farther see — we are 
almost wholly destitute of trustworthy historic information. 
But in order to give true religion a substantial and solid 
foothold in the world, it was necessary that some people 
should be wholly freed from this greatest and most powerful 
enemy of Christianity. This was the great first step toward 
the thorough Christianization of the world. 

The actual traveling which the people did from Egypt 
to Palestine was exceedingly circuitous, and wandering 
from place to place, as if they knew not where to go ; and 



WITH SOME OF ITS REASONS AND RESULTS. 67 

the journey was protracted beyond all lengths reasonably 
necessary for such a travel. In this way the people were 
kept exclusively by themselves, and were continually in 
such condition and circumstances that they must constantly 
see the most important and palpable displays of the Divine 
power and goodness. Nothing else could be so well calcu- 
lated to cure them of idolatry. 

Some might imagine that so much teaching could hardly 
be necessary. We are poorly prepared to judge. The 
people of Christendom know but little of the wonderfully 
controlling power of idolatry. 

Idolatry is not a mere opinion, but a passion, a disease — 
a fanaticism, inbred, pervading, endemic, and hereditary. 
It is a moral derangement, or monomania, more powerful 
than any other yet discovered in the human constitution. It 
may be impracticable, if not impossible, to cure any one 
person outright of idolatry, short of direct miraculous 
interference. The process must continue on unremittingly 
through several successive generations. 

And then, if you could do so, it would be of little use, 
so far as permanency was looked to, to cure a part of the 
people, even half or three -fourths — a whole nation or 
community must be cured at once, and then be preserved 
from contact with idolatrous people. 

This was done most wonderfully in this case. They were 
detained in the wilderness, trained, schooled, and disci- 
plined, until a new race had risen up. And yet, after all 
these wonderful teachings and deliverances, they were but 
barely fit to enter upon their new career in the promised 
land, as the pioneers of mankind. Still, this forty years' 
teaching was perhaps the most profitable school the world 
ever passed through. 



68 ISKAELITES, HEBREWS, AND JEWS — 



CHAPTER VIII. 

ISRAELITES, HEBREWS, AND JEWS — REASONS FOR THE 
SEVERAL NAMES, AND THEIR MEANING. 

Israel, as is well known, is the name divinely given to 
Jacob, after he wrestled with the angel ; and his descend- 
ants took the name from him. The name was a title of 
honor given him because as a prince he had power with 
God, which remark perhaps we are not very well prepared 
to understand. The name of Israel will never cease to have 
high and heavenly associations. They and their descend- 
ants were the chosen of God. They were his Church, or, at 
least, they constituted a large portion of it — the deposita- 
ries of his grace and word, and the pioneers in teaching and 
preaching true religion to mankind. 

The name Hebrew is fancied by some to have come from 
Heber, a Kenite, and member of the family of Jethro. But 
that is not at all likely. The truth, no doubt is, that this 
name was given to the Israelites after their entrance into 
Palestine, as significant of their relationship to the country. 
The word is said to mean stranger or immigrant, or one 
having recently come into a country. It is nearly equiv- 
alent to foreigner with us. Thus they were Hebrews, or 
new-comers in that country. The word was generally 
applied to them, and it soon became popular, and like all 
other words used in that way, it soon lost its former signifi- 



REASONS FOR THE SEVERAL NAMES. 69 

cation. The name Israel was not lost sight of, but was 
used in the more popular way. 

The term Jew was not kno^\Ti until six hundred years 
afterward. After the idolatry of Solomon, the nation, 
under the curse of the Almighty, divided into two king- 
doms, under Rehoboam and Jeroboam, as their respective 
leaders. Those who adhered to the former, the son of 
Solomon, consisted mainly of the tribe of Judah, which 
had grown to be very large, and took the name of Jews 
from the name of the tribe — Judah ; and the other party, 
retaining the national name, were called Israel, 

Mr. Watson's Biblical and Theological Dictionary, Arti- 
cle Jew, tells us that, " Not only all the Israelites of future 
times have been called Jews, but all the descendants of 
Jacob, from the earliest times, are frequently so called by 
us at present." 

This is evidently a mistake, though Mr. Watson is by no 
means alone in it. It is well known that the large and 
powerful house of Ephraim, with nearly all of nine other 
tribes, which formed the kingdom of Israel under Jeroboam, 
were never, while thus separated, called Jews. Where the 
descendants of this ancient nation are at present, is not 
certainly known. This question will be looked into in a 
future chapter. Mr. Watson does not know that they are 
not the Anglo-Saxons. While I do not subscribe to that 
doctrine, which, by the way, has been ably advanced, I do 
not consider it improbable that much of the blood of Jacob 
now runs in the veins of that people. The term Jeiv has 
been applied to the descendants of Judah and Benjamin, 
and to their descendants. 

And Mr. Watson is farther in error in supposing that all 
the lineal descendants of Judah and Benjamin are called 
Jews " by us at present." They were, in a very general 
sense, so called during the nationality of Judah ; that is, 



70 ISRAELITES, HEBREWS, AND JEWS. 

until shortly after the time of Christ. But since that time, 
it is well known that only a portion of their descendants 
have been called Jews. There is a popular notion afloat that 
the people now called Jews comprise the entire progeny of 
the Jewish people as they existed in Palestine and other 
countries, at the birth of Christ. But, on reflection, all 
must see that this is a mistake. Nothing is more plainly or 
more abundantly taught in the New Testament than this — 
that at the time of Christ, and in a few years after his 
death, the Jewish people divided into two great antagonistic 
parties, the one party receiving and following Christ, and 
the other rejecting him. And it is the rejecting Jews, and 
they only, since that time, that have gone by the name of 
Jews. Which was the larger and which the smaller of 
these two parties, numerically, we have now no means of 
determining with certainty. This question will be inquired 
into in future chapters. It need perhaps only be remarked 
just here, that the Scriptures indicate that the party of 
receiving, or Christian Jews, were, if not the more numerous 
of the two, at least very numerous. So that the people 
called Jews, in these ages, are so far from comprising " all 
the descendants of Jacob," that they are but a portion — 
may be half of the half of those descendants ; and it may 
turn out that we may see that the fraction may possibly be 
much less than that. 



UNKNOWN HISTORY OF ISRAEL. 71 



CHAPTEE IX. 

CONCERNING THE UNKNOWN HISTORY OF ISRAEL, BEING 
ONE-HALF OR MORE OF THE HEBREW PEOPLE. 

"When the great Israelitish nation divided into two nation- 
alities under Eehoboam and Jeroboam, the ten tribes under 
the latter retained the common name of Israel, while the 
other tribes of Judah and Benjamin took the name of Jew, 
or Jews. They thus lived side by side, in Palestine, the 
greater part of three hundred years, sometimes in peace, but 
more frequently at war with each other, or wdth other 
nations. About seven hundred and twenty years before 
Christ, Israel, being at war with the King of Assyria, was 
subjugated, and the greater portion of the people were 
carried away captive into Assyria ; and some years after- 
ward, a considerable portion of the remainder shared the 
same fate. Here ended the historic nationality of Israel, 
or, as they are oftentimes called, the ten tribes. And not 
only is their nationality lost sight of, but their very exist- 
ence is no longer known, and they are now only known as 
the lost tribes. 

The fruitless and unsatisfactory researches which have 
been made of late — since the revival of letters — for them^ 
imply that their posterity still exist somewhere in Che 
world, as a distinct nation, or, at least, as a distinct aad 



72 UNKNOWN HISTORY OF ISRAEL. 

separate people. But what evidence have we that this 
is so ? 

Upon what ground is it considered necessary, or even 
possible, to trace doy^n the genealogical descent of the ten 
tribes, for a period of more than two thousand ^ye hundred 
years since they ceased to exist as a nation ? 

This possibility arises, perhaps, with many, from the sup- 
position that we are able to do the same thing with the 
people comprising the kingdom of Judah. But this sup- 
position, we cannot fail to see, on a little careful reflection, 
is not true. The supposition that the people commonly 
known as Jews, in modern times, compose the entire living 
posterity of the kingdom of Judah, is certainly a wide 
mistake. We may hope to see it proved in some future 
chapters, that they are the descendants of a fragment of a 
fragment of portions of that nation ; and that the peculiar 
physiological marks by which Jews are distinguished, have 
arisen entirely outside of lineal descent, and from other than 
mere ancestral causes. 

The kingdom of Israel, as it existed over seven hundred 
years before Christ, was subjugated, and portions were 
carried captive, at different times, into foreign countries. 
Many left Palestine — others returned, irregularly, at differ- 
ent times, and assisted in making up the Samaritan branch 
of the ancient Church. But there being nothing, either 
civil or ecclesiastical, sufficiently powerful among them to 
keep them together, they have long since all gone by leak- 
age, and have become mixed and mingled with the people 
of earth. 

One of the best efforts to identify them I have seen, 
finds them in the ancient Saxons, and so in the present 
Anglo-Saxon race; and I think it not improbable that 
more of the descending blood of Israel is to be found in 
them than elsewhere in any distinct people. 



THE CHURCH AT THE TIME OF CHRIST. 73 



CHAPTER X. 

CONCERNING THE MORAL AND RELIGIOUS STATE OF THE 
CHURCH AT THE TIME OF CHRIST. . 

We frequently see it stated in the books, that at the time 
of Christ, the Church had degenerated into a most deplora- 
ble state of morals and religion. Debased corruption and 
profligacy in morals, with most blinded and besotted igno- 
rance of God and of theology, were the ruling order of 
things. 

I do not know of any inspired history to warrant these 
wholesale conclusions. Frequently the language of sharp 
rebuke and accusation is administered; but in all these 
passages, when fairly and carefully considered, I see nothing 
which might not have been, or indeed which was not, 
denounced against them at Tarious times previously. Nor, 
indeed, do I see any complaints against them which might 
not have been appropriately mentioned against the Church 
at periods five hundred or one thousand years later ; and, in- 
deed, perhaps most, if not all of these expressions, might not 
be unjust now. There has never been a time yet when a 
great deal of ignorance and wickedness was not to be foimd 
in the Church. But that that was a time of peculiar wick- 
edness a»d corruption, beyond what w^as seen previously, 
and even subsequently, is an historic fact of which I see no, 
evidence, save in the fancy and imagination of theological 
n^^lt^s. This has sometimes been found necessary, in order 



74 STATE OF THE CHURCH 

to support the favorite and unsound hypothesis of great 
superiority in the new Church, and the 7iew religion of 
Christ. 

Much of this wholesale denunciation against the Church 
at that period, has probably been superinduced, or at least 
found license, by a few unguarded expressions in Dr. 
Maclaine's translation of Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History ; 
and these expressions may be more attributable to the trans- 
lator than the author. Indeed, the learned translator him- 
self tells us that he took considerable liberties with the 
Latin text of the great historian. 

We are told — Part I., c. ii., sec. 5: — ^'All regarded the 
whole of religion as consisting in the rites appointed by 
Moses, and the performance of some external acts of duty 
toward the Gentiles." And again, sec. 12: "They were 
accordingly sunk in the most deplorable ignorance of God, 
and of divine things ; and had no notion of any other way 
of rendering themselves acceptable to the Supreme Being 
than by sacrifices, washings, and the other ceremonies of the 
Mosaic law." 

The sweeping remarks which I have italicized are, beyond 
all question, far outside any thing found in the history. 
Nay, the history contradicts them in many places. But 
such wide-spread remarks from such a man as Dr. Mosheim, 
give very large license to later and lesser writers. 

With a few exceptions, the Scripture texts from which 
these conclusions are drawn, do not refer to the Jewish 
people at all; but only to some priests — ^to Scribes and 
Pharisees, and such very small classes of persons ; or some- 
times to certain persons at some particular time and place. 
Much more is said in the New Testament of the irreligion 
of the officials, and of the Pharisees and Sadducees, than of 
the people ; and we must remember that all of these sects 
made up but a handful of the Jewish Church. 



AT THE TIME OF CHRIST. 75 

Dr. George Smith, of England, in his useful work, The 
Hebrew Peoi^le, in attempting to show the deep corruption 
of the Church at the time of Christ, considers the question 
settled by the parable of the Pharisee and Publican. He 
says — page 492 — that the Pharisee " was the beau-ideal of 
Jewish religion in the time of Christ." But I see nothing 
to warrant such a conclusion. If the Pharisee is to be 
taken as the representative of a class, the Publican should 
also be regarded as a representative of a larger class; 
though both Pharisees and Publicans together made but a 
handful of the Hebrew people. Why not consider the 
Publican "the beau-ideal of Jewish religion in the time of 
Christ?" Either conclusion would be alike gratuitous and 
unfair, though they were both Jew^s. 

Moreover, there is another side to this picture. There 
are expressions in the sacred text respecting the morality 
and religion of the times, other than those of denunciation 
and rebuke. Indeed, with all the w^ell-deserved complaints 
put forth against the Jews at that time, there is some com- 
mendation and praise also. They were not all sin and cor- 
ruption, neither were they all religion and purity. It is 
said by St. Mark that the common people heard him gladly; 
and in the Acts of the Apostles we have quite a number of 
accounts of great masses — multitudes upon multitudes of 
people, and many of the priests — who w^ere obedient to the 
faith. Of this we will see more in a future chapter. 

And also, in those days, we see that the Jews had in use 
among them something of a religious literature. There 
was, of course, no printing, and books or rolls were very 
costly, and so scarce as to be used by but a very few. 

Besides their sacred books, which comprise the Old Tes- 
tament, they had other books, which bear all the marks of 
having been written by pious persons of some intelligence. 
Some of these books w^e now have, and, singularly enough, 



76 THE CHURCH AT THE TIME OF CHRIST. 

we call them Apocrypha, Some of them have, it is true, 
but a poor theology for the most part ; but what they lack 
here — ^if we consider the times and circumstances — may be 
supposed to be partially made up in piety. Then they had 
the Targums, These were explanations of Scripture, written 
after the captivity. They were a sort of paraphrase, written 
somewhat in the manner of Doddridge^ s Expositor, 

And if they had not many good books, they had, most 
probably, no bad ones. On the whole, they were a natural 
people, with natural ways of acting and thinking. They 
were the true Church of the living God, embodying a good 
deal of substantial piety, a considerable amount of super- 
stition, bigotry, and sectarianism; a great improvement 
upon former ages, with some good and some bad theology. 



JEWISH PEOPLE AT THE TIME OF CHRIST. 77 



CHAPTER XI. 

A CURSORY VIEW OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AT THE TIME 
OF CHRIST, AND OF " DISPENSATIONS." 

At the time of Christ, the Jewish people consisted of 
what I think might be very properly termed three different 
Churches, or three different denominations of the Church. 
First, there were the Hebrew Jews, as they are generally 
called by way of distinction. They lived in Judea and 
Galilee, for the most part, and w^orshiped on great festive 
occasions at the temple in Jerusalem. Second, there were 
the Samaritans, who chiefly inhabited Samaria, and wor- 
shiped on such occasions at their temple in Mount Gerizim. 
They were a somewhat mixed people, descended mostly 
from the Israelites, but, after their dispersion, became 
mixed somewhat with other nations. Third, there were 
the Hellenistic Jews, who lived chiefly in Egypt, and had 
their temple in Heliopolis. These several Churches were 
opposed to each other in many things, each one claiming to 
be the true, and only true Church, properly descended from 
Jacob. Each declined a general ecclesiastical fellowship with 
either of the others. They each had their oAvn Scriptures, 
in their own language, for they were people of different 
languages. The Hebrew Jews spoke the Hebrew, the 
Samaritans used the Syriac dialect, and the Hellenistic 
Jews spoke the Greek. '" 



78 VIEW OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE 

The very stringent meaning generally attempted to be 
given to the reply to the Saviour by the Samaritan woman 
at the well, that the Jews had no dealings with the Samari- 
tans, is by no means true. Whether the remark was made 
by the woman herself, or was introduced by the Evangelist 
to explain the woman's meaning, it means no more than 
that there was no good feeling between them generally, 
and no ecclesiastical fellowship. Samaria lay in the very 
midst of Palestine, directly between Judea and Galilee. 
There was much significancy in the remark, (John iv. 4,) 
that the Saviour, in going to Galilee, must needs go through 
Samaria. There w^as no other land-route without crossing 
the Jtordan, and traveling very circuitously through a hilly 
country. There must have been much dealing and inter- 
course of one sort or another between the Jews of Judea 
and the Samaritans. Indeed, the Jews journeying with 
the Saviour had at that very moment gone-^o buy meat 
from the Samaritans. 

The Samaritans were Jews, or at least Hebrews — as 
much so as either of the other Churches above named; 
though it is quite likely that there had been more of 
mixing of blood with other people among them than either 
the Hebrew Jews or the Hellenists. The woman, it is seen, 
in this instance, claimed direct descent from Jacob, both 
naturally and ecclesiastically. "Art thou greater than our 
father Jacob ?" etc. 

The non-intercourse of these three classes of Jews was, 
after all, at times and in places, rather nominal than real. 
Sometimes many of them indiscriminately attended the 
great feast at Jerusalem. Christianity, or Christology, if 
any should prefer the term, w-as the ruling, cardinal tenet 
among all. 

In religious writings we have much said about different 
diq)ensations. The common notion gathered from the cur- 



AT THE TIME OF CHRIST. 79 

rent writings of the day are, that religious history is divided 
into two dispe7isations—th.e Mosaic and the Christian. They 
are the two different systems of religion, or the two differ- 
ent modes of the Divine dealings with mankind. It is 
hardly necessary to inquire whether these writings for the 
most part might be sustained by a stringent verbal criti- 
cism. It is enough, perhaps, to know that misteaching is 
generally the result of the hackneyed use of this much- 
hackneyed and ambiguous word. 

It cannot be denied that there have been the two dispen- 
sations above alluded to ; and it is equally true that there 
have been three dispensations, and four, and five, and six, 
and ten, and forty, and five hundred. 

That is to say, in plainer words and better understood, 
the providence of God has continued among men under 
a great variety of circumstances, and his favors and grace 
have been dispensed in and among this variety of human 
condition. And so, there are different dispensations — ^very 
different in various parts of the world to-day. The variety 
of manner in which religious teaching is given and received 
by men is frequently as great at the same time in different 
parts of the world as in the same countries in different 
periods. In the sense in which the word dispensation is 
intended to be used, it cannot by any means be predi- 
cated of different ages or periods of the world exclusively. 

The days of Abel were peculiar, and those immediately 
preceding the flood, and those in, and immediately after ; 
and the period from Abram to Joseph, and others pertain- 
ing to Melchizedek's Church ; and the bondage, the deliver- 
ance, the journey to Palestine, and many, many others. 

And just so of different countries and different conditions 
of things in the same periods. Look at the widely different 
manner in Avhich religion is dispensed now in highly culti- 
vated countries — ^in the forest among the Indians, in China, 



80 VIEW OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE 

in Central Africa, at European courts, and the cabin of the 
black man. In these and many other varieties of life, 
religion is dispensed to mankind in a great variety of man- 
ner. This could not be otherwise. 

But the notion that the world is divided chronologically 
into precise dispensations y and that the one closes the day or 
year before the other begins, is sufficiently fanciful, to be 
sure, but is supported by nothing that I know of, either in 
Scripture or the reason of the thing. 

And if one will notice, it will be found to be a little 
remarkable how different writers divide exactly between the 
Jewish and the Christian dispensations. It seems difficult 
to find the precise day and hour when the one closed and 
the other began. Schauffler, in his most excellent Medita- 
tions on the Last Days of Christ, says the old dispensation 
closed just at the moment when the Saviour and his disci- 
ples arose from the table where they ate the last passover 
in the large upper room at Jerusalem — probably the day 
before the crucifixion. Others make it close at the time 
of the death of Christ ; and others at the resurrection — ^at 
the ascension — at his birth — and at his baptism, etc. 

Into such fancies men are led by an error once settled 
upon. You might as well try to find the precise hour when 
a man passes from boyhood to manhood ; or, upon strictly 
meteorological principles, the day and hour when winter 
begins. The varying alternations of Providence do not 
change with such mechanical exactness. 

But the injurious effect practically of fixing these two 
dispensations is in the comparisons they set up between 
Moses and Christ. These comparisons almost necessarily 
degrade the character of the Saviour in the estimation of 
Christians, while they bewilder the mind with mythical and 
unreal notions of Moses. 

And so we have "the dispensation of Moses," and "the 



AT THE TIME OF CHRIST. 81 

dispensation of Christ," and the relative and comparative 
virtues, advantages, and disadvantages of each, drawn out 
and commented upon in modes most singularly unscriptural, 
to say the very least. 

Even Mr. John Fletcher, a reasoner of no ordinary abil- 
ity, in his Checks to Antin&fniaiiism, when the line of his 
argument required him to maintain the normal dispensation: 
of freely-offered grace alike always to all people, tells us 
about "the dispensation of Moses," and contrasts it with 
that of Christ, and contends that after all God was nearly 
as merciful two or three thousand years ago as he has been 
since ! Thus he greatly weakens his argument at the very 
point where it needed strength the most, and where the 
means of support were so abundant. 

Why not speak of the dispensation of David, of Isaiah, 
of Daniel, or of Paul ? Yea, why not of Augustin, of 
Calvin, or of Wesley ? 

Who was Moses but a feeble sinner saved by grace ? He 
was a minister, like some of us, and did his duty most 
of his life. And who is Christ but the omnipotent God — 
the Lord Jehovah? Most assuredly Christ sustained the 
same relation to dispensations in the time of Moses that he 
did in the time of Abel, of Paul, or in our own time. And 
although the duties providentially assigned to Moses in the 
Church were of the highest and most important character, 
they were mere duties^ like those assigned to other servants. 
" Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant ;" 
but in no other way than as a servant. 

Dr. Henderson says. Religious Encyclopedia, p. 465, 
"What, then, was the dispensation of Moses? .... In it 
God appeared chiefly in the character of a lawgiver, and 
the system of his administration was a species of tutorage 
arid discipline adapted to the condition of weak, carnal, and 
worldly people. Under that form of God's government, 



82 VIEW OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE 

men became members of his kingdom by birth and parent- 
age — entitled to its privileges by external conformity to its 

prescribed ritual The law made nothing perfect, 

being intended only as the introduction of a better hope.'^ 

I can scarcely see how greater or much more important 
untruths could be stated in so small a compass. From this 
we would understand, that prior to eighteen hundred years 
ago, men were saved — " became members of his kingdom " — 
by birth and the mere performance of external rites. This, 
perhaps, might do for some supposed human dispensation, or 
might harmonize with some human errors, but most assuredly 
no divine disperisation of either grace or judgment ever ad- 
mitted any person into the favor or kingdom of God on any 
conditions other than repentance toward God and faith in 
our Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, Moses never taught, so 
far as we know, any other conditions of salvation. 

"Chiefly in the character of a lawgiver"? Such bald 
perversion is absolutely unpardonable. He was and is a 
lawgiver in and during every day since the intimation of a 
Saviour, in the days of Adam, until this present day, in 
exactly the same sense. Under the law — the original con- 
stitution — God was wholly and exclusively a lawgiver ; but 
under the gospel — when Christ intervened — thousands of 
years before Moses was born, salvation was ofiered to man 
as it is now, and in no other way. 

I ask Dr. Henderson if the book of Psalms was written by 
St. Paul, or in his day ? Under the inspiration of such 
high strains of devotion did "men become members of his 
kingdom by birth and parentage"? And were they enti- 
tled to the privileges thereof by " external conformity to its 
prescribed ritual"? It is not less than a solemn mockery 
to use such language after reading the 119th Psalm; and, 
indeed, most of the others. 
. " The law made nothing perfect"? The law was and is 



AT THE TIME OF CHRIST. 83 

absolutely and essentially perfect. It "made" nothing — ^per- 
fect or imperfect — good or bad. It is only a law — a perfect 
law, demanding perfect obedience. Nor is it " the introduc- 
tion of a better hope." It introduced no gospel — in its 
very nature it was totally ignorant of a gospel or of salva- 
tion in any way. It knew nothing but its own sanctions. It 
was a benevolent dispensation of mere justice ; and because 
that was its character, the gospel, a totally new and foreign 
thing, was introduced over and above its provisions. 

But a chronological dispensation of "the law," or a "legal 
dispensation," since the days of Adam, is utterly unknown 
to Scripture, and against all Scripture. 



84 THE JEWISH SECTS, AND 



CHAPTER XII. 

CONCERNING THE JEWISH SECTS, AND THEIR RELATION TO 
THE CHURCH AND JEWISH COMMONWEALTH. 

From what we frequently read, many draw the conclu- 
sion that the Jewish people, as a whole, were divided into 
three religious sects, viz., the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and 
the Essenes, This is a mistake. All these sects combined, 
formed but a mere handful of the Jewish people. Indeed, 
they were not sects, or separate denominational Churches, as 
we now understand that term, but were a very different 
thing. On this subject I believe we have no authority, 
except the New Testament, Josephus, and Philo ; and in 
these books they are never treated as religious sects, or 
denominations, but as sects or schools in philosophy and pol- 
itics. The Scriptures do not pretend to describe their par- 
ticular relation to the Jewish Church and people, but 
Josephus does, repeatedly and particularly ; and he always 
calls them sects of philosophy. We would now call such 
associations schools, or societies, or political parties. They 
were, nevertheless, members of the Church, and, comprising 
many of the literati of the day, of which there was then 
but the merest fragment, they exercised much religious 
influence. In those days, philosophy and religion were 
very much mixed up in the teachings of those who were 
educated* 



THEIR RELATION TO THE CHURCH. 86 

They arose but a short time — ^less than two hundred 
years — ^before the time of Christ, and were mere schools, or 
social societies, associated together for the ostensible purpose 
of teaching rules of moral and civil philosophy ; and then, 
after a time, assuming to embody a good deal of wisdom 
and literary knowledge, they claimed — and in many things 
very correctly, no doubt — the ability to construe the Scrip- 
tures better than anybody else, and so, to teach religious 
doctrines. 

Josephus calls them " sects of philosophy,'' and estimates 
the Pharisees — the highest figure — at about six thousand, 
and the Essenes at four thousand ; though from the mention 
he makes of them, I should think it probable that there was 
not always a distinct and personal membership in these 
societies, but that, like other parties of a somewhat similar 
charaaier, the membership was loose and indefinite, rather 
than personal and specific. Many persons favored them 
severally, and their peculiarities, more or less, and w^ere 
more or less identified with them. See Josephus's Antiqui- 
ties, Book XVII., c. ii., sec. 4, and Book XVIII., c. i., sec. 5. 
The Sadducees are generally understood to have been very 
few in number, as compared wdth either of the other sects. 

Because some Pharisees are spoken of in Scripture as 
proud and ostentatious in religion, and ignorant of much 
sound doctrine, we are taught sometimes, in very sweeping 
language, that they were all notoriously ignorant and 
corrupt. But we should remember that St. Paul, after he 
had been preaching the gospel more than twenty years, 
avowed himself still a Pharisee. Some of the authors tell 
us that he had been a Pharisee. But this " had been " is a 
mere human notion, foisted upon the divine teaching, and 
entirely without authority, and against authority. 

It is quite probable that an undue importance is often- 
times given to these Jewish associations. The probability 



86 THE JEWISH SECTS. 

is that they had no legal connection with the Church, any 
more than Freemasons, or members of temperance or lite- 
rary societies have now. They were outside associations, 
having ostensibly in view improvement in morals, philoso- 
phy, and literature. In those days there was, among what 
were called literary men, much contention and stickling 
about questions in philosophy and morals ; though we must 
remember that there was but one man, in perhaps five hun- 
dred or in thousands, who possessed any thiug like a lite- 
rary education, or could read and write. 

Where religious errors are affirmed of the Pharisees and 
Sadducees, the meaning intended evidently is, that they pro- 
vailed generally — not that they were absolute and specific 
conditions of association. St. Paul imdoubtedly died a 
Pharisee. I refer to both the New Testament and Josephus's 
history, for the strict correctness of these observatidfcs. 



JOHN THE BAPTIST. 87 



CHAPTER XIII. 

JOHN THE BAPTIST — HIS OFFICE AND RELATION TO THE 

CHURCH. 

This highly distinguished personage certainly acted a 
most important part in religion in his day, though he is but 
very briefly mentioned in the sacred narrative. His mission 
and work have probably never been fully appreciated or 
well understood. 

The world was now drawing on to that state of things 
which rendered it proper for the Saviour to be see^i — to be 
intelligibly introduced to mankind. The time marked out 
by the prophets had matured, and among the most intelli- 
gent there was a general expectation of the appearance. 

And now Christ was about to appear among men, and put 
an end to a farther anticipation of his coming, to which the 
Church had been so accustomed in all former days. And 
we now inquire, What was naturally necessary in order that 
he might meet such a reception as the necessities of the case 
required ? He was to be born of a woman — some woman ; 
and somebody's child, growing up among his acquaintances 
and friends, would lay claims to the Messiahship ; and these 
claims must needs be examined, canvassed, scrutinized, and 
decided upon, not only by his immediate friends and a few 
pious persons, but by the entire Church ; and every indivi- 
dual person in the whole Church must decide between the 



88 JOHN THE BAPTIST — HIS OFFICE 

one true Christ and many — no one could know how many — - 
false Christs that might arise. 

Again : The most accurate prophecies did by no means 
satisfactorily point out the very year in which Christ should 
come. It might be a few years earlier or a few years later, 
as those prophecies were understood. 

I do not mean that, with us now afterward, there is any 
doubt as to these prophetic numbers; but, as is the case 
with all prophecies, with them beforehand the precise time 
could not be, and indeed it was not, determined satis- 
factorily. 

Now, if some instrumentality could be set on foot by 
which the very time could not only be pointed out, but be 
implicitly relied upon by the great mass of the Church, and 
have the mind prominently aroused and fixed upon it, it 
would evidently facilitate religious matters very much. A 
great point would be gained. Indeed, something of the sort 
seems to be clearly necessary. 

These considerations, if looked at more fully than I un- 
dertake to write them, will furnish the reasons for the special 
ministry of the Baptist just at this time. 

We then proceed to inquire, How^ and to what extent, the 
precise time of Chrisfs appearance was made hiown to the 
Hebrew people, and the immediate effect of it f 

So far as the personal ministry of the Baptist is con- 
cerned, it is by no means difiicult to see how he could con- 
vince all who could attend upon his ministry that the time 
for the Messiah's appearance had come ; and we can easily 
see that he could baptize the people into this faith. By this 
baptism I mean that the people, by the solemn act of bap- 
tism, would make public acknowledgment of their belief in 
this great religious fact. 

The field of his actual labor seems to have been in the 
region of the Jordan — ^both sides of it — ^from the mouth, at 



AND , RELATION' TO THE CHURCH. 89 

the Dead Sea, extending upward not less than twenty-five, 
and perhaps forty or fifty, miles; and including at least *a 
portion of Gilead, and no doubt a portion of Samaria. But 
this field of labor is described only as "the wilderness;'' 
that is, the country — outside the city. 

We can but believe that his preaching was wonderfully 
attracting, and that great masses thronged him constantly. 
We do not know the length of the time of his ministry, 
but it was probably from about three to five years. 

His great business w^as to convince the people that the 
time of the Messiah was then present ; and secondly, to 
exhort the people to repentance. The one naturally sug- 
gests and includes the other. He baptized his disciples into 
these two things : repentance toward God, and faith in the 
now present, visible existence of the Saviour. This latter is 
a different thing from the general doctrine of a Saviour 
— that had always been a doctrine of the entire Church. 
But their Christianity was naturally fuller, or more com- 
plete, when, in addition to the general doctrine — all that 
previously could be believed---they recognized his actual 
presence in proper person. 

There is good reason to believe that he preached to, and 
baptized into this faith, a large proportion of the people 
of Judea and Gilead, and many of Samaria and other 
portions of Palestine. He roused the w^hole Hebrew nation : 
first, to a vivid remembrance of their great doctrine of a 
Saviour; and secondly, to the vitally important fact that 
the time of the great advent was then upon them. 

This is what is meant by preparing his tvay. Without 
such an awakening and popular belief of the veritable pres- 
ence of the Saviour, produced by some outside instrumen- 
tality, he would have lacked much of the magisterial prestige 
and moral force w^hich did so powerfully and so wonderfully 
commend him to the Jewish people ; and without which he 



90 JOHN THE BAPTIST — HIS OFFICE 

might not, naturally, have attained such foothold as was 
necessary to the success of his cause. 

The doctrine of a Messiah was common among the Jews ; 
nothing was better understood nor more uniformly acknowl- 
edged. But the actual coming was put off for posterity. 
No one expected it to occur in his day. It was entirely a 
thing of the future. But now the doctrine is put on very 
different grounds: now the people then living are to see 
him. He is no longer to be a Saviour anticijpated in relig- 
ious belief, but a Messiah to be seen in our own day — a 
Saviour already born, and even now living amongst us. 

This is a vitally important feature in the theology of 
that day ; and yet it cannot be called a new doctrine, but 
the completion of a doctrine which had long been progress- 
ing toward completion. It is no more a new doctrine than 
the death of a Christian is a new doctrine. The mission of 
the Baptist was therefore indispensable, or at least, in the 
highest degree useful, to a proper and practical understand- 
ing of an old and well-settled doctrine of the Church. 

We come next to inquire briefly into John's Baptism. 
What was it f Was it different^ and if so, in what was it 
different from Christian Baptism f 

Few things in theology have given rise to so much 
shallow - water controversy as Christian Baptism. Into 
these debates I have no occasion to enter. If I could 
spare the candle, there are other objections. 

Much has been written about the legal mode of baptizing, 
as if a thing could be done in an illegal mode. That is 
impossible. Law — any law — divine or human, refers to 
things, and things only, and not in anywise to the mode 
of doing things. That, in the very nature of things, is 
left to the agent at will. Command requires an agent to do 
or to not do things. Here law ends. You might as well 
attempt to prescribe the manner of not doing prohibited 



AND RELATION TO THE CHURCH. 91 

things, as the manner of doing enjoined things. There 
is no such thing. Nothing can be commanded but things. 
Modes are not subjects of command. It is true that several 
things frequently make up the sum of the mode of doing 
a more general thing; still, things, and things only, are 
commanded to be done. 

Baptism, as performed by John, is very abruptly intro- 
duced without explanation; and is not, therefore, well 
understood in all its bearings. It w^as certainly a signifi- 
cant ceremonial w^ashing performed with or in water, more 
or less being used in the performance. 

The word baptism does not occur in the Old Testament ; 
but the thing meant is clearly alluded to. But in the days 
of the Baptist the rite was used with a more definite and 
explicit purpose than formerly. Religious washings, or 
lustrations, were long known among the Jews. They were 
religious acts or ceremonies, indicating generally, if not 
uniformly, two things : first, emblematical cleansing, or 
purification; and, secondly, the sign of an assumption, 
profession, or acknowledgment of a religious obligation, 
or the confession of a belief in some religious fact or doc- 
trine. These things naturally call for some external cere- 
mony to give them force, and make them patent both to 
the subject and to the Church. 

From a very early period, the Hebrew people were 
accustomed to these religious washings. They became 
more specific and distinct in process of time; and the 
thing became more and better understood as to the end and 
import. They possessed the character of a sacrament from 
the first, but in these ages they had acquired and possessed 
a more distinct end and object in the ritual of the 
Church. 

So that John's baptism was not a new thing. This we are 
obliged to infer from the question asked in John i. 25. 



92 JOHN- THE BAPTIST — HIS OFFICE 

The Sanhedrim did not ask him what new rite he was 
introducing, but what authority he had to minister it. 

John was sent to prepare the luay of the Lord. Now, it is 
important to inquire, How did this popular Jewish baptism 
prepare the way for the introduction of the Saviour's work 
and ministry ? And this is the same as to inquire. Into what 
did John baptize these members of the Church? Into 
what belief, faith, profession? What obligation do they 
assume in this baptism? To what do they profess them- 
selves bound by it ? or what religious fact or doctrine does 
it announce ? 

If we look upon these times as natural times, and these 
people as natural people — thinking, reasoning, and acting 
as men would naturally do in such circumstances — ^we will 
come to the conclusion that this is nothing more nor less 
than a baptismal or sacramental confession that Christ had 
came, and that they personally subscribed to the fact. 

In this there was nothing new. The seers and prophets 
of old, and they and their fathers, had always believed 
he would come, and this was but the consummation of that 
faith. 

The baptismal confession was necessary, because of the 
vital importance of the fact, and that in its nature it 
required specific belief. The truth of the fact, or its im- 
portance in the system of religion, or the divine instruc- 
tion given to John to publish it, does not insure its universal 
belief; and hence the necessity of knowing, publicly and 
privately, who do receive it as matter of faith. 

Thus, they w^ho were baptized, were committed to the 
fact — the great fact — that the time of Christ had come. 
Thus his way was prepared practically and to purpose. 

And we come next to inquire a little farther into the 
repentance so prominently connected with the ministry of the 
Baptist. I am not able to discern the striking peculiarities 



AND RELATION TO THE CHURCH. 93 

which many seem to see in the repentance preached by- 
John. Eepentance is a simple, natural concomitant of 
religion everywilere and in all circumstances. No Chris- 
tian grace nor religious feature can rest on any thing else. 
The degree of repentance is the measure of practical god- 
liness then, and now, and always. 

There are, however, some notew^orthy considerations, not 
in the repentance which John preached, but in the natural 
fitness of its introduction and enforcement just then, and 
in the prominent manner in which it was done by this 
eminent minister. 

The Church had then, for thousands of years, been look- 
ing forward to a coming Saviour. The more pious and 
intelligent paid much attention to the subject, while the 
thoughtless masses cared but little about it. The prophe- 
cies were carefully read by many, and with a variety of 
opinion. And now we see a well -authenticated teaching, 
published far and wide, that the period of the Messiah's 
advent is now! Our own eyes shall see' the Emmanuel! 
He is even now born amongst us! Repent ye, for the 
kingdom of heaven is thus peculiarly at hand. 

Moreover, the repentance preached by John was strictly 
a religious duty, and not a mere sorrow or distress. So 
that this preaching and baptism was, as far as practicable, 
calculated to remove from the minds of the people the . 
notion which had grown up considerably, that their Messiah 
was to be a civil deliverer. He thus gave them to under- 
stand that this whole matter of national expectation of a 
Messiah was strictly a religious, and in no sense a civil or 
political question. 

The people were unprepared for the Saviour, and in this, 
that they generally, or at least many of them, looked for a 
temporal prince. But the preaching of John disabused 
their minds, and showed that it was strictly a religious 



94 JOHN THE BAPTIST — HIB OFFICE 

teaching that was to be looked for. And many were bap- 
tized into this belief and confession. 

What relation did John and his di^iples sustain to 
Christ and his disciples F — In Matt. ix. 14, Luke v. 33, and 
elsewhere, the disciples of John and of Christ are alluded 
to severally, and in distinction from each other ; and from 
this and other things, many erroneously suppose that in 
some sort, or to some extent, they formed different ecclesias- 
tical associations. The term disciple, as anciently used, had 
scarcely an ecclesiastical signification at all ; it was used to 
denote the followers of a leader in any thing. 

There was among them nothing approaching a separate 
Church-relationship ; they were all members of the Church ; 
and there was but one Church. The question of ecclesias- 
tical jurisdiction or Church-membership, did not enter into 
their matters at all. John was distinguished from other 
Jewish priests only as to the matter of his preaching. His 
being the special herald of Christ was a mere extraordinary 
appointment. 

Both the disciples of John, and those of Christ, were 
regular, ordinary Church-members ; and they were called 
their disciples because they were great and extraordinary 
leaders in the ministry ; and so many were called Moses's 
disciples. So they were — or ought to have been — the dis- 
ciples of Moses, and of John, and of Christ. 

What relation did the Jewish sects hear to John and to his 
disciples f — It has been already explained that the Pharisees, 
Sadducees, and Essenes were mere societies, or schools, in the 
Church, of no considerable numerical extent ; they, in the 
aggregate, numbering but a few thousand. They had no 
particular relation to either John or his disciples — many of 
them were among his disciples. 

In the third chapter of Matthew it is said that John saw 
" many " of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his bap- 



AND RELATION TO THE CHURCH. 95 

tism; and so they became his disciples indiscriminately 
with others. Their association with these sects had nothing 
whatever to do with his preaching, nor with their assent 
to it. 

The severe admonition he administered to the Pharisees 
and Sadducees, " O generation of vipers," etc., mentioned 
in Matt. iii. 7, deserves notice here. In the first place, 
we are by no means to suppose, as some seem to, that on 
some one occasion he merely uttered these words as he saw 
some of these persons approaching him t(\ be baptized. 
Both Pharisees and Sadducees were, no doubt, coming to 
him on many occasions, indiscriminately wdth others, for 
months or years ; and knowing the errors in religion to which 
they were generally addicted, he would, when circumstances 
called for it, administer to them a lesson touching these 
errors. We have some intimation as to these errors, or 
some of them ; and it would be exceedingly pertinent in the 
preacher occasionally to wake them up to a sense of their 
heresies, by asking them why they should deem it necessary 
to come to the baptism of repentance for sin, and a belief 
in the near approach of the Messiah, if they already con- 
sidered themselves so much purer and holier than other 
people. 

He preached to all the proper Judaism of their, fathers, 
and of Christianity, and showed their literary men, who 
made such pretensions to biblical knowledge, how greatly 
they were mistaken, and how they would lead to deism, and 
a repudiation of the very doctrine of a Messiah. 

The Baptists relation to Christ, more personally considered, 
— There w^ere some personal peculiarities about John the 
Baptist, not particularly mentioned, which at once pointed 
him out as a most extraordinary man. Many expected to 
fihd in him the Messiah of their religion ; and indeed many, 
for a time, believed him to be the Christ. This was so 



96 JOHN THE BAPTIST — HIS OFFICE 

common, that he frequently found it necessary to disclaim 
it directly and publicly. These explanations were, no 
doubt, frequently and elaborately made; not so much, 
however, in regard to himself, as to show the magisterial 
greatness and incomparable dignity of Christ. By his 
side, he himself was utterly insignificant. 

The personal and social intercourse between Christ and 
John seems not to have been close or intimate. The precise 
meaning of John, in John i. 31 — " I knew him not " — is 
not quite cerjainly known. They were nearly related, and 
their parents were intimate friends, as appears from the first 
chapter of John ; but it was perhaps necessary, in order for 
John's testimony to possess the greatest amount of force 
practicable, that they should not be personal and intimate 
friends ; though whatever may have been the condition of 
things between the two men personally, John did not under- 
take to decide in what particular individual the Messiah- 
ship resided until the divine attestation was given. 

" On whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and re- 
maining on him, the same is he that baptizeth with the 
Holy Ghost." John i. 33. Then John identifies the person, 
and says ; "And I saw and bear record that this is the Son 
of God." 

What was the meaning and import of Christ s baptism by 
John f — In these later days, there being but one end and 
meaning in baptism, we are very apt to attach that meaning 
to the word wherever we find it. A little reflection, how^ever, 
should teach us that, in the nature of things, the word could 
not by possibility have had the same meaning before the 
death and resurrection of Christ as afterward. And a 
little farther reflection will show us that, as applied to 
Christ — he being the subject of it — it must of necessity have 
had a different signification still, in some respects. With 
him it could have had no reference to personal purification^ 



• AND RELATION TO THE CHURCH. 97 

as in other cases. With him it could have no reference to 
silly there being no sin in the case to refer to. Neither could 
it have been to ratify and establish his ecclesiastical rela- 
tion, for that is fixed and made patent by the very nature 
of things. But some have supposed this baptism to have 
been submitted to for the purpose of setting an example to 
men in all after - time. This could not be ; because, first, 
no such example was needed then nor now. Man might 
need some stimulant to the undertaking of an obligation, 
religious or otherwise ; but baptism is the mere sealing or 
ratifying of an existing obligation. This is quite natural, 
and is not performed with reluctance. And secondly, the 
act of Christ in such a matter could hardly be said to be an 
example to us — the inauguration of a king is not an example 
to the subjects. 

These difficulties remove, if we consider the baptism of 
Christ to refer to his theocratic reign as the universal prince 
of mankind. Here we see the fundamental idea of bap- 
tism. It marks a new course of life, and fixes the public 
seal of an obligation. And this suggests force and meaning 
to the observation of John : " I have need to be baptized 
of thee, and comest thou to me ?" The explanations of the 
Saviour, but very laconically given in the text, reconciles 
John's scruples. 

John's relation to the dispensations of religion, — ^The very 
ambiguous term "dispensation" has been used, sometimes 
to throw more, and sometimes less, light upon the ways of 
God in regard to mankind. 

Mr. E. Watson says of the several dispensations of re- 
ligion, that " all these were adapted to the conditions of the 
human race at these several periods: all in regular suc- 
cession were mutually connected and rendered preparatory 
one to the other; and all were subservient to the design 
of saving the world and promoting the perfection and 
4 



98 JOHN THE BAPTIST — HIS OFFICE 

happiness of its rational and moral inhabitants." This 
is all well enough, if it be farther understood that 
the chronological relation of these dispensations is by no 
means specific and distinct; but when these several dis- 
pensations are separated by a distinct and specific relation- 
ship — that the one ends exactly where the other begins — 
that the world is divided into these precise dispensations, as 
so many chronological eras — when we thus understand the 
term, we place the providence of God under rules which it 
never prescribed for itself. There are no such dispensations 
as these. 

In dispensing his grace and mercy to mankind, God in 
his providence has always had respect to the gradually 
changing aspects and conditions of the world ; and so there 
could be no specific termination of the one and beginning 
of the other. Some tell us precisely the number of dis- 
pensations there have been, and that this current one and 
one more will conclude this earthly scene. This present, we 
are told, is a dispensation of grace; as if, since the fall 
of man, there had been any other. 

And so we are taught that the life and ministry of John 
the Baptist includes one complete dispensation. It v/as a 
short but important one, fitting exactly between the Jewish 
and the Christian dispensations. 

This is too fanciful to be true. God does not deal with 
men in that way. There have been different conditions of 
the Church, and of the world : these are ever-varying. The 
time of the preaching of John may be spoken of as a dis- 
pensation in the same sense as the same thing may be 
predicated of the preaching of any other eminent minister 
whose life marks an epoch in the history of the Church. 

Different eras, or dispensations, having reference to dif« 
ferent things, may be considered as beginning and ending at 
any place in chronology ; and still particular conditions of 



i 



AND EELATION TO THE CHURCH. 99 

the Church or the world may be regarded as different dis- 
pensations of Providence. The period of the Jewish cap- 
tivity may be regarded as a peculiar dispensation of God's 
mercy and grace ; and so of the journey in the wilderness. 
The period of the personal ministry of the Saviour was the 
most glorious dispensation of God's ways to man the world 
has seen. The period commonly called the Dark Ages was 
a peculiar dispensation ; and so of the Keformation, under 
the ministry of Luther. 

In this sense the ministry of John the Baptist may be 
regarded a striking and peculiar dispensation of the mercy 
and grace of God; but not in the legal sense frequently 
meant. In a more general sense, there is but one dispensa- 
tion — ^that included in the period of man's probation. 



100 CORRUPTION OF THE CHURCH 



CHAPTER XIV. 

THE ALLEGED CORRUPTION OF THE CHURCH IN THE TIME 
OF CHRIST FARTHER CONSIDERED AND REFUTED. 

The notion of two religions, Judaism and Christianity , 
differing from and opposing each other — ^the one a bad or 
defective, and the other a good and complete religion — fur- 
nishes a reason, if not a necessity, for making the Church, 
at the time of Christ, to appear exceedingly corrupt ; and 
so it has become fashionable to denounce both its morals 
and religion in the most unmeasured terms. It is highly 
needful that this subject be looked into a little farther than 
the observations in a former chapter lead us. 

Dr. Clarke, in his comment on Matthew iii. 3, says: 
" The Jewish Church was that desert country to which John 
was sent to announce the coming of the Messiah. It was 
destitute, at that time, of all religious cultivation, and of 
the spirit and practice of piety, and John was sent to prepare 
the way of the Lord, by preaching the doctrine of re- 
pentance.'^ 

Such wholesale remarks as these can by no means be jus- 
tified. For this idea of " that desert country " we are in- 
debted entirely to the Doctor's fancy ; and as to the Church 
being at that timt, or any other, destitute of all religious 
cultivation, and having none of the spirit or practice of 
piety, it is quite out of the question. If the Doctor's 



IlSr THE TIME OF CHRIST. 101 

remarks are true, then the Jewish people at this time were a 
completely heathen people ; w^hereas, it is an unquestioned 
fact that their theoi^' of religion was precisely what ours is 
now, so far as the subjective history of religion rendered 
this possible. They did not believe in a crucified and risen 
Saviour, for at that time such religious truths did not exist. 
But they believed, or at least claimed or professed to be- 
lieve, in the same Saviour we beKeve in now. 

How far there was individual or popular departure from 
their own written religious tenets, as is the case abundantly 
in the Church now, is another question ; but that the Scrip- 
ture was wholly departed from, is what nobody ever pre- 
tended to believe. 

Lessons from the Scriptures — the same Scriptures we have 
now — that is, the Old Testament, were publicly read, in 
solemn worship, usually in four hundred places, to so many 
worshiping congregations, on every Sabbath-day, in the city 
of Jerusalem alone ; and in how many other places we do 
not know; but from what we know of the existence of the 
Church out of the city, all over Palestine, and away in 
foreign countries, there must have been thousands of 
churches — that is, synagogues — that is, houses of worship. 
And not only did they read Scripture lessons in public 
worship, but they, in connection therewith, just as we do 
now, prayed once or twice, and frequently sung psalms, and 
uniformly listened to a religious discourse, or sermon ; all of 
which acts of worship were supposed to conform to the 
religious lessons so read. Their regular Sabbath-day worship 
was almost precisely what ours is now, except that the New 
Testament was not then in existence. 

And yet, we are told by the Doctor, that there was no 
religious cultivation among them, nor any of the spirit or 
practice of piety. It is a glaring mistake. 

Such expressions as the above, from Dr. Clarke, could 



102 CORRUPTION OF THE CHURCH 

easily be quoted from other portions of his writings, and 
also from many other authors of high standing. This may 
be based, if upon any thing, upon expressions in the gospel 
respecting, not the Jewish Church, or people, but some 
scribes and Pharisees, and certain persons here and there. 
But it seems strangely to be forgotten that all the scribes, 
Pharisees, and Sadducees combined, made up but the merest 
handful of the Jewish people. To speak of them, or here 
and there some few of them, as is generally the case, is one 
thing ; but to speak of the Church, or great mass of the 
Jewish people in all countries, is quite a different thing. 

It is, however, very readily conceded that, prior to the 
crucifixion, the Church generally entertained very low and 
inadequate views of religion ; and it is also well known that 
through the preaching of Christ, of John, and of the 
apostles and others, religion revived greatly during the 
lifetime of Jesus, and immediately after the ascension. 
But just here there are a few well-grounded considerations 
which might be profitably noticed : 

First The incidental mention, which is frequently made 
in the New Testament, of the immorality and irreligion of 
some of the priests, the scribes, the Pharisees, and Saddu- 
cees, which is generally introduced by way of illustration or 
casual notice, does not, of itself, give us any very clear 
information as to the state of religion generally in the 
Church at that time ; and I know of no good reason we 
have to conclude that they were looked upon as leaders in 
the Church, though many of them assumed to lead and to 
teach. The Church numbered, probably, six millions of 
persons. Josephus reckons six thousand Pharisees, and the 
Sadducees, we know, were composed of a comparatively few 
persons of wealth and distinction. And, moreover, the 
preaching and exhortations of the New Testament, partic- 
ularly those of the Saviour, refer almost wholly to the sins 



Ijsr THE TIME OF CHRIST. 103 

of the people. His exposures of sin were prominent, bold, 
and outspoken. He searched it out wherever it was to be 
found, and denounced it in the plainest and broadest terms. 
It is very true that he met with sin wherever he went, as is 
seen from his denunciations of it ; but he nowhere under- 
takes to give even the most general account of the morals 
or religion of the Church. Here, now, one-tenth or one- 
twentieth of the people are pious. Perhaps it was as bad 
then, may be worse ; but certainly, from all the Saviour or 
the apostles have told us — indeed, from all we read in the 
New Testament — there might have been then in Palestine 
hundreds of thousands of devotedly pious people. 

Secondly. As before observed, the Church at that time 
had something of a religious literature, which gives some 
clue to the manner in which the Bible — the same we now 
have — ^was then understood. These writings, it is true, 
have had a rather singular fortune in later times. They 
have certainly long since ceased to be apocryphal, though 
they are still so called ; and the relation they are generally 
placed in to the sacred text, gives them a positiont hey are 
by no means entitled to. They contain the religious views 
of their unknown authors ; and from some of them, which 
there is good reason to believe existed before the coming of 
Christ, we make a few extracts : 

^' He that feareth the Lord, will repent from his heart." 
2 Esdras ix. 11. "As yet place of repentance was open 
unto them." Wisdom xii. 10. Esdras speaks distinctly 
of God's pardon of sin, and says he is "mighty to forgive." 
" Forgive thy neighbor the hurt he hath done unto thee, so 
shall thy sins also be forgiven when thou prayest." 

Many and much more extensive extracts might be made 
from these books, proving that the people at least tolerably 
well understood the fundamental principles of religion. 

Thirdly, The doctrine of repentance, as preached among 



104 CORRUPTION OF THE CHURCH 

the people so powerfully by John, was not, as we have every 
reason to believe, intended or regarded as a new thing. He 
merely enforced, as one would now, a well-understood tenet 
of the Church. 

Fourthly. Philo, a celebrated and pious Jew, and historian 
of those times, is thus quoted by Dr. Smith, in his Hebrew 
People : " It is our duty to trust to God to cleanse and beau- 
tify our frame, and not to think that we are of ourselves 
capable, without his heavenly grace, to purge and wash away 
the spots with which our nature abounds." And again: 
" Faith in God is the noblest of all virtues." Again : " The 
only sure and well-founded blessing to which we can trust 
is faith in God. It is the comfort of life, and comprehends 
every salutary hope. It is the diminution of evil, and pro- 
ductive of good ; the ruin of demoniacal influences and pro- 
motive of true godliness. It affords a title to happiness, 
and is the improvement of the human soul, when the soul 
reposes itself, and confides in the great Author of our being, 
who can do all things, but wills only and determines what is 
best." Again : "If, then, they have from their very souls a 
just contrition, and are changed, and have humbled them- 
selves of their past errors, acknowledging and confessing 
their sins, having their conscience purified first in sincerity 
and truth, to the Power who knows their sins, and after- 
ward by confession to those who may thereby be edified; 
such persons shall find pardon from the Saviour and merci- 
ful God, and receive a most choice and great advantage of 
being made like the Logos of God, who was originally the 
great archetype after which the soul of man was formed." 

Very many extracts might be made from him, showing 
that he understood and taught the main principles of 
religion well. And when we consider the high and prac- 
tical value they placed on their sacred books, and the 
extensive manner in which they were taught in religious 



IN THE TIME OF CHRIST. 105 

lessons every Sabbath-day, we are obliged to conclude that, 
notwithstanding all the conflicting influences to which they 
were subject, there existed among the Hebrew people a rich 
and large amount of sterling theology, and that it stood out 
plainly in the Church at the time the Saviour made his 
appearance among them. The great elements of religious 
truth which form the very soul of practical godliness, and 
which are the richest gifts in the range of revelation, are 
all found here. 

The purity of man's primitive nature is here asserted. 
His present fallen nature, polluted and hapless state, is 
asserted to be such that nothing but the grace of God can 
meliorate his condition. The necessity of sincere repent- 
ance and faith in God is maintained as lying at the founda- 
tion of all practical piety. The happy results of these, in 
the amendments of the life, the washing away of sin, and 
the attainment of pardon, are all held forth ; and ultimately 
a hope is exhibited of a restoration to the likeness of the 
Logos of God, after the image of whom the mind of man 
was originally formed. 

Fifthly, And when the Saviour himself came, we do not 
find him teaching and explaining the principles of religion ; 
neither did his apostles do so. We do not see them 
explaining the elements of theological truth. On the con- 
trary, they found an existing orthodoxy well understood 
everywhere. When the Saviour spoke of penitence, faith, 
pardon, or prayer, he did not have to explain these things 
to the people — they were all well understood ; and this very 
fact — that the people well understood this religious phrase- 
ology — is conclusive evidence against the truth of the 
sweeping denunciations we so frequently meet with of the 
wide-spread, deep, and total corruption and ignorance of 
those times. 

Let any man read Sianpson's Pka, or any such work, 



106 CORRUPTION OF THE CHURCH 

respecting the religion of England at or about the close of 
the last century ; or D' Aubigne, two centuries before, and 
he will find far more just complaint against the Church 
then than is read in the New Testament. Indeed, if far 
more had been said than is said in the Scriptures, denunci- 
atory of the piety of the Church at the time of the coming 
and life of the Saviour, it would not be absolutely incom- 
patible with the supposition that the Church at that time 
contained an amount of piety that would compare reason- 
ably well with the Church at many periods since, or even 
now, in many parts of it. Indeed, I know of nothing in 
the New Testament, properly understood as to its applica- 
tion, denunciatory or depreciatory of the Church then, 
which might not be truthfully repeated now. 

While I believe, therefore, that the irreligion of those 
times was greater than is anywhere plainly and in terms 
set forth in the New Testament, I do not see any evidence, 
outside the imagination of men of these later times, of the 
deep and universal apostasy of the Church at that time, 
which they, many of them, so unqualifiedly represent. 

I marvel, therefore, when I see such a man as Dr. 
Nevin — Biblical Antiquities, p. 255 — gravely write down 
that old Simeon, and pious Anna, and others^ were excep- 
tions to the uniform, wholesale impiety of the Israelitish 
nation ! 

Dr. Nevin says farther: "Yet even these appear, for the 
most part, to have entertained the notion that the benefits 
of the Messiah's kingdom were to be enjoyed especially by 
the Jews, and that the Gentiles, in order to have part in 
them, would be required to unite themselves, as proselytes, 
with the Israelitish Church." 

I think the Doctor is mistaken in supposing that that 
belief was entertained among pious Jews, "for the most 
part." The belief was universal, and, it may be very safelj 



IN THE TIME OF CHRIST. 107 

added, it was a correot belief. The benefits of religion, to be 
enjoyed by Gentiles, or anybody else, required them "to 
unite themselves, as proselytes, with the Israelitish Church." 
That was the very thing to be done : for Gentiles " to unite 
themselves^ as proselytes, with the Israelitish Church^ That 
was the Church — the true Church — ^there has never been 
any other. The Saviour and the apostles succeeded, in a 
goodly degree, in inducing men to become proselytes to the 
Israelitish Church. That was, and is, the great business of 
the ministry. Let the reader mark this point : we expect 
to have more to say about it. 



108 WHAT IS JUDAISM? 



CHAPTER XV. 

WHAT IS JUDAISM? 

In order to be well understood as we pass on, it is highly 
needful that the question at the head of this chapter be 
fully answered and well understood. Logomachy is dis- 
pute, not argument. A war of words is the most useless 
of all wars ; and an error in words is but an etymological 
error. Fair debaters deal with each other's meaning. 

In ecclesiastical discussions we frequently meet ^Yith 
the word Judaism. What does the author mean by the 
expression? The word does not, I believe, occur in the 
English Scriptures. * 

Buck's Dictionary tells us that Judaism is " the religious 
doctrines and rites of the Jews, the descendants of Abra- 
ham." Watson's Dictionary tells us that Judaism is "the 
religious doctrines and rites of the Jews, the descendants 
of Abraham." And he then explains that the laws com- 
posing Judaism "are contained in the books of the Old 
Testament." Webster's Dictionary tells us that Judaism 
is " the religious doctrines and rites of the Jews as enjoined 
in the law of Moses." Henderson's edition of Buck ex- 
plains, though he does not state it in exact terms, that 
Judaism is the written religion of the Old Testament. 

These definitions are all the same, and are expressed 
nearly in the same words. I know of no authority that 
difiers from this. 



WHAT Ig JUDAISM? 109 

The Old Testament was the Bible of the Jews, or of the 
world — or of the Church, before the New was written. 
We, then, are at no loss to see and define Judaism with 
precise exactness, for every man has it now, word for 
word. Until the period of the coming of Christ, this was 
the only written revelation God had made to mankind. 

The Old Testament was not all ^rritten at the same time. 
It was perhaps one thousand years from the writing of the 
five books of Moses to the end of the Prophets, about four 
hundred years before Christ. During this space the Old 
Testament was the Scriptures of the whole Jewish Church. 

Then Judaism is the Old Testament, word for word. So 
far there can be no difierence of opinion. 

But then it is also true, that, although the religion before 
Christ was written and specific, yet it was not therefore well 
understood by everybody, nor by all alike. 

At, and for some time before the coming of Christ, there 
existed among the Jews two or three little literary associa- 
tions, or philosophical schools, sometimes called sects, which 
are previously described. Through the influence of these 
teachers, or otherwise, the religious mind of the Jews had 
been considerably corrupted on several important religious 
doctrines, so that to the extent of these errors they — ^some 
of them — misunderstood their own religion. 

So that ^^the religious doctrines and rites of the Jews, 
as wi'itten in the Old Testamenty^ were one thing ; while a 
misunderstanding of these doctrines and rites, by those who 
did misunderstand their religion, was quite another. In 
this respect the same state of things existed then as now. 
The revealed religion of mankind has been fixed since the 
Pentateuch was written, at least, though these or those 
men, in different times and different countries, have enter- 
tained a great variety of erroneous opinions in regard to 
religion. 



110 WHAT IS JUDAISM? 

As to the religion of Jews, since the apostolic age, being 
called Judaism, in the sense above described, that is out 
of the question. I mean by this, that we cannot suppose 
an intelligent writer to give the name of Judaism to the 
written religion of the Jews before Christ, and also to 
that of the Jews, so called, since that period. This would 
make a man call two different and antagonistic religions 
— as different and as antagonistic as any two religions can 
be — by the same name, and make them identical. 

Nevertheless, in a mere literary sense, it is quite proper 
enough to call the religion of modern Jews by the name 
of Judaism, Any name is a correct name of any thing 
that is uniformly understood. But still, when we apply 
this word to the religion of the Church before Christ, and 
to that of the modern Jews, we mean — if we speak cor- 
rectly — not only different but quite antagonistic things. 

We will see a farther elucidation of this important 
point in a future chapter. 

But beyond all question, the only proper meaning of the 
word Judais7n is, as all the authors define it, the written 
system of religion of the Jews before the coming of Christ, 
exactly as it now stands in the Old Testament. 

Modem Jews call their religion Judaism; and I have 
only to say, that if it embodies the religion of the Old 
Testament, then it follows necessarily that Christianity 
is apostasy from the true revealed religion. Modern Jews, 
so called, claim their religion to be Judaism only upon the 
ground that Jesus was an impostor. He was or he was 
not the Messiah of the Old Testament. If he was and is, 
then Christianity is true, and is identical with the religion 
of the Old Testament, and the religion of modern Jews 
is a totally new and totally false religion. But if Jesus was 
not the Messiah of the Old Testament, then it follows 
necessarily that Christianity is apostasy, and the religion 



WHAT IS JUDAISM? Ill 

of modem Jews is true Judaism — that is, the true, and 
only true, revealed religion. True Judaism is now unques- 
tionably found either in Christianity or in the religion 
of modern Jews, and to determine which one possesses it, 
you have only to determine whether Jesus is or is not 
the Christ. If he is, then Christianity is true Judaism; 
and if not, then the religion of modern Jews is true 
Judaism. 

Before the time of Christ, we cannot possibly mistake 
as to what Judaism was ; and since that time, it depends 
on the question above whether Jesus was the Christ. And 
as you determine that question, you determine which party 
is the true successor of the true ancient religion. 



112 TRUE SCRIPTURAL JUDAISM 



CHAPTER XVI. 

TRUE SCRIPTURAL JUDAISM FARTHER CONSIDERED. 

Mr. Watson, Biblical and Theological Dictionary, 
Article Judaism, says that "Judaism is the religious doc- 
trines and rites of the Jews." And he farther says, that 
"a complete system of Judaism is contained in the books 
of the Old Testament." This I take to be precisely correct. 
But he then farther says: "Their religious worship and 
character, in our Saviour's time, had become formal and 
superstitious ; and such it still continues to be, in a greater 
or less degree, at the present day." 

This I am unable to understand. I can understand how 
many, or even all the Church, in the time of the Saviour, 
might have become "formal and superstitious." Whether 
the religious condition of the Church then would justify this 
sweeping remark, is a question we have already looked at ; 
but I can plainly see how it might be so. But what does 
the learned autnor mean by the farther remark, " and such 
it continues to be " ? What continues to be ? He does not 
mean that the Church generally continues to be formal and 
superstitious. He evidently places the Jews, whose religion 
in the Saviour's time, as he says, was the Judaism he de- 
scribes, and the Jews of the present day, in the same relig- 
ious category ! I can understand him in no x)ther way. But 
this is a most transparent and palpable violation of ihe 



FARTHER CONSIDERED. 113 

well-known history in the case. You might as well attempt 
to place any two peoples, of different religions, in the same 
category. No two religions are more dissimilar than that 
of the Jeivs in the Saviour's time and the religion of the Jews 
of the present day. 

The former ivas Christianity, If any man doubts this, let 
him look into his Bible and see. But I am sure that no 
theologian will question the proposition, that the religion 
of the Old Testament is essentially Christian. This written 
religion of the Old Testament is what Mr. Watson says is 
Judaism ; and it is what I say, and what every one must 
say, is Judaism. But that is so far from being the religion 
of the Jews of the "present day," that modern Jews utterly 
repudiate every part of its religion. And it comes so near 
being the religion of present Christians, that Mr. Watson, 
and every other Christian, embraces every religious doctrine 
and sentiment it contains, and none others. 

If any one doubts that the unbelieving Jews repudiated all 
the religion of the Old Testament, I ask him if they did 
not deny and repudiate the Christ of the Old Testament. 
And I then ask him, farther, if the Old Testament contains 
any religion after you wholly exclude Christ from it. And 
if any one doubts that the whole of the Christian's religion 
is contained in the Old Testament, I ask him to point out a 
doctrine of religion in the New Testament which is not 
contained in the Old. 

I speak of Judaism as it was, and as Mr. Watson and 
everybody else describes it --the written and professed 
religion of the Church at that time. What errors these or 
those persons may have entertained respecting the written 
religion of the Church, is another question. It is readily 
conceded that many priests, scribes, Pharisees, and Saddu- 
cees, did not understand* and live up to, but greatly per- 
verted their written faith. Perhaps that was as much the 



114 TRUE SCRIPTURAL JUDAISM 

case then as now. The professed religion of the Church was 
Christian, was right, and was true ; that is, it was just as 
Christian, as right, and just as true as the Old Testament is 
now. It has not been altered. It was the religion of the 
Church then — it is the religion of the Church now. 

Now, how can Mr. Watson place those people, professing 
this religion, in the same religious category with the Jews 
of the present day? It is true they are both called Jews^ 
but names do not make things — they only denominate 
them. 

The simple facts in the case, to state them briefly just 
here, are these : 

First At and before the birth of Christ, the entire Church 
acknowledged and claimed the written Scriptures — ^the Old 
Testament, just as we have it now — as their written faith. 
And, then as now, some — many — misconstrued some of the 
Scripture teachings ; and to this extent their religious belief 
was defective. And also, then as now, a great many things— 
and among them some erroneous things — ^touching religion, 
not written, were believed; and of course the erroneous 
things believed produced errors in religious belief. It was 
not wrong to believe traditions of the elders. The question 
is, whether they were true or not. It was profitable to be- 
lieve true traditions, and injurious to believe untrue ones. 

Secondly, The doctrine of a coming Messiah was universal : 
none dissented. And the belief was pretty general that the 
time of his coming was then about at hand. Some of the 
people were pious — a majority were not. 

Thirdly. At this time John the Baptist proclaimed, and 
" Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about 
Jordan" believed that the Messiah was then in their midst ; 
and they were solemnly baptized with this belief. 

Fourthly, And then a certain individual person was 
pointed out by John as the veritable Messiah ; and he was 



FARTHER CONSIDERED. 115 

personally presented to thousands, if not millions, as the 
Messiah. And now, for the first time in the world, it be- 
came both possible and necessary for the faith of Christian 
men to attach, not generally to the doctrine of a Christ, but 
to a particular, identical person, as the Messiah of prophecy. 

Fifthly. On this latter point — the identity of the person 
— the Church divided. Each man must of necessity, then 
as now, decide this question of the individual identity of the 
person. The man Jesus was or was not the Christ of their 
common religion. If he was, then it was stark, total 
apostasy from the universal faith of the Church to reject 
him. If he was not, then it was stark, total apostasy from 
the universal faith of the Church to receive him. Recog- 
nizing the truth that Jesus was the Christ, then it follows, 

Sixthly. That all those Jews, be ^ they many or few, either 
absolutely or relatively, who rejected Christ, turned square 
away from the Church, apostatized wholly, not partially, from 
the common faith, and set up a new religion totally different 
from JudaisDi, and in the highest conceivable antagonism to it 

Seventhly. And it farther follows, from the imperative and 
most simple laws of logic, that those Jews who received 
Christ, remained firmly and exactly where they were in the 
Judaism of their fathers, and that of their own previous pro- 
fessions. Some Jews remained in the Church, holding its faith 
firmly; and some, by rejecting Christ, apostatized from it. 

Eighthly. From fortuitous, but very natural circum- 
stances, those Jews who maintained their ancient faith by 
receiving Christ as the Saviour, were afterward called 
Christians, both they and their descendants who maintained 
the faith, together with all others who joined their com- 
munion, and their descendants, ecclesiastically, to this day. 
And the rejecting Jews have likewise maintained their 
apostasy with most wonderful pertinacity. They and their 
descendants have, since that time, been called Jews. 



116 JUDAISM FARTHER CONSIDERED. 

Now, how can Mr. Watson — I need not speak of Mr. 
Watson particularly : I merely quoted him for a text to this 
chapter : I could have quoted the same thing from many 
others — how can he, I say, speak of the religion of the 
"Jews" at the coming of Christ, and say of them and 
of the "Jews" of the present day, conjointly, that their 
religious worship and character in our Saviour's time had 
become formal and superstitious ; and such it still continues 
to be, in a greater or less degree, at the present time ? 

If you apply the statement to the facts of history, it has 
no meaning. It is indeed marvelous that the notion has 
become so common, that the religion of " the Jews " at and 
before the birth of Christ, and that of " the Jews " of later 
days, continued to be the same. The truth is, there are no 
two religions known to -history in higher hostility to each 
other. The former was and is wholly Christian, and the 
latter is in the highest hostility thereto. 

Mr. Watson places in the same category, and speaks 
indifferently and interchangeably of, two things as different 
and as highly hostile to each other as any two things 
can be. 

Let the reader bear in mind, and hold me responsible, 
that my affirmation is, that the rejecting Jews apostatized 
wholly and finally from their former faith, and that of their 
fathers, and their Church. 



RELIGION OF MODERN JEWS. 117 



CHAPTER XYII. 

THE RELIGION OF POST - MESSIANIC, OR MODERN JEWS, 
FARTHER EXPLAINED AND ILLUSTRATED. 

The relation of modern Jews to Christianity deserves to 
be looked at a few paragraphs farther. By Christianity I 
mean true religion, in any age, or any country. I under- 
stand this to be the only religion revealed by God to man, 
and hence, the only true religion. All other religions are 
the inventions of men. If John the Baptist, and Isaiah, 
and Daniel, and David, and Abraham, and Noah, and Abel, 
were not Christians, then they were idolaters, or deists, or 
the followers of some other man-made, false religion. How 
well informed these men were respectively, in the theory and 
doctrines of their religion, is the same kind of a question, 
applied to them, as to any Christians living now, or at any 
other time; or what degrees of personal piety were enjoyed 
by any particular persons, in any former ages of the world, 
before or after Christ, is the same kind of a question as if 
applied to living Christians. Many unsaved persons, in any 
period, subscribe nominally to the true religion, and are 
found in external association with the pious. 

Leaving out, then, the question of personal piety, which 
alone is the condition of salvation, no matter how wise or 
how ignorant any one may be, of what we call religious 
doctrines, we are prepared to distinguish between those 



118 RELIGION OF POST-MESSIANIC, OR 

holding a true and those holding a false religion. Christians 
hold a true faith — all other religion is false. 
• We conclude, then, that the entire Jewish people, before 
the time of Christ, had a true religious faith, nominally, at 
least, because they professed the revealed religion. They 
subscribed to the Old Testament, verbatim ; and everybody 
knows, or ought to know, that these writings embody sub- 
stantially and essentially the Christian faith. Christ w^as, 
and is, in these books, in precisely the same sense as he is 
now in the four books commonly called the Gospels. 
Exclude Christ from the Old Testament, and, I ask, what 
have you left ? You have the same left as you have if you 
take the life of a man from a man — you have the husk left ; 
you have the ink and paper left ; and you have some written 
historic facts ; and you have also some wholesome rules, 
which might be advantageously employed in social morals ; 
but you have no more of a revealed system of religion left 
than you have in an almanac or a nautical chart. A system 
of religion with Christ excluded is, at least, a flat contra- 
diction. 

The Jews, then, before Christ, had a true religious faith. 
They believed in Christ — of course, the Christ then in pros- 
pect. And now, what occurred in the course of the history 
of this system of religion ? Why, the great event to which 
all looked forward, occurred ; the looked-for Christ made 
his appearance. But this introduces no new principles of 
religion ; it merely sustains the established principles. The 
coming of an eclipse vindicates the principle and the truth 
of the calculation ; while, to repudiate the fact, would also 
deny the system of Astronomy, which pointed to it. Just 
so of the Christ of the Hebrew Scriptures. Failing to 
receive him, is to turn away from that faith ; to believe in 
him, does not impose any new belief; it only requires a con- 
tinuance in that which is already believed. To refuse to 



MODERN JEWS, FARTHER EXPLAINED. 119 

receive Christ then, was the same kind of an act of apostasy 
as it would be to repudiate him now. 

The idea, then, that modern Jews have the same religion 
as the Old Testament Jews, is to suppose that, to repudiate 
a system utterly, is the same as to adhere to it. 

But it might be asked : Do modern Jews not believe in 
the law of the Old Testament, in Moses, in Abraham, and 
in the prophets? And the answer is, that most certainly 
they believe in nothing of the sort ; they believe in a " law " 
which excludes all divine authority and sanctions; they 
believe in an historic person called Abraham, without the 
connection mth Christ which makes the scriptural Abraham 
what he is ; they believe in a supposed Moses, entirely sepa- 
rated from Christ, which alone gives the Moses of Scripture 
the position and character he has; and they believe in 
prophets, or rather, the names of prophets, but so utterly 
separated from all the characteristics of the prophets of 
Scripture, as renders them entirely different characters. 
And so they believe in Abraham, and use his name in their 
deistical worship ; but their Abraham has no other relation 
to the Abraham of Scripture than the mere similarity in 
name — the two words sound alike. 

And they may also use certain external forms and manip- 
ulations, and words, in worship, which were used by the 
ancient Jews ; but these things prove only that they take 
some of their religious history from the Bible ; but it proves 
nothing about their religion. Any number of systems of 
false religion could easily be made, having interwoven 
among them many of the names, much of the history and 
external actions of the ancient Jews. 

The religion of the ancient Jews had one, and but one 
vital, central idea connected with it ; that vital, central idea 
Was as well understood in any one of the many different 
ages of the world as it was understood at any other time ; 



120 RELIGION OF POST-MESSIANIC, OR 

it is tolerably well understood now, and has been for many 
years. That idea is, the atoning Saviour of mankind — the 
Christ of prophecy. The man whose faith centers there, has 
the religion of the ancient Jews, and of the persons, since 
Christ, who are called Christians. Any other faith is totally 
antagonistic thereto. Where Christ — the identical, personal 
Christ — is wholly rejected, the antagonism to the revealed 
religion is complete. 

As before stated, the Old Testament Scriptures, vdth 
Christ excluded, is no more a system of religion than is the 
Koran or the Mormon Bible. If a man were to set up a 
new system of religion, in opposition to Christianity, it 
would save him some labor and ingenuity to adopt the Old 
or New Testament — that is, its forms and verbiage, luith 
Christ excluded — and the work is well done. This is the 
religion of modern Jews. 

It does not for a moment abate a whit of this argument 
to suppose that those rejecting or apostatizing Jews, in so 
doing, believed they were following the old, true faith. 
That is very possible. Apostasy is one thing; how any 
particular person comes to apostatize, is another. The ques- 
tion is not what they thought about it ; the question is, 
what they did. It may reasonably be presumed that all 
apostates, or other irreligious persons, persuade themselves 
that they are following the truth. These rejecting Jews 
did apostatize most certainly. 

They substitute a new, false, future, supposed Christ, for 
the Christ of their Scriptures, and of their former faith. 
Nor does their nominal holding to the Old Testament, or 
part of it, relieve the difficulty in the least. With their 
perversions, their meaning, and their use of the books of 
the Old Testament, they are no longer Scriptures, but a 
jumble of infidelity. 

I take no pleasure in applying^ the term deist to modem 



MODERN JEWS, FARTHER EXPLAINED. 121 

Jews. I have no fancy for mere names. I am aware of 
the difficulty of defining what a deist is. I wish only to 
define modern Judaism, and show its real relation to the 
religion of the Bible, and to the ancient Jews. 

It is not by any means true that modern Jews believe 
either in the Old Testament, or in the God of heaven. 
Every deist and idolater will tell you he believes in God ; 
and so he does believe in something he calls God, though it 
be the sun, or the world, or any other false god. The 
question whether a man does or does not believe in God — 
the God of the Bible — is the question whether he does or 
does not believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as set 
forth in the Old Testament, and also in the New. "Ye 
beKeve in God, believe also in me." "And that they might 
know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou 
has sent." A god out of Christ, is an idolatrous god. 
Christianity being true, there is and ean be no other God 
than Jehovah, as seen and believed in through Christ Rev- 
elation — Old Testament or New — knows no other God than 
God in Christ. Christ is God made manifest to us. 

It is idle, then, to suppose that Jews, more than any one else 
repudiating Jesus Christ, believe in God. It is a contradic- 
tion. They believe in a false, imaginary god, utterly un- 
known to any part of Scripture. This may be said of all 
deists and idolaters. 

Mistaken Christians, as Unitarians, for instance, stand 
upon very different ground. They believe in Christ, though 
they may be more or less mistaken as to these or those 
peculiarities in his character. They may make very great 
errors without repudiating him wholly. 

It is admitted by all, as matter of fact, that the Old Tes- 
tament — all through it — speaks of some one identical, indi- 
vidual person, distinguished from all others in the universe, 
as a divine or Emmanuel person, a person to mediate 



122 RELIGION OF MODERN JEWS. 

between God and man; sustaining some wonderful, and 
even inexplicable, relation to the Deity, as well as to man- 
kind, in some peculiarity. Now, there are, and have been 
always heretofore, some diversity of opinion with regard to 
the exact relationship of this person to Jehovah, and also 
to mankind ; and there are no doubt here, among Chris- 
tians, many errors — some very great ones. That is one 
thing. They all believe that the man Jesus was that 
person. But to deny utterly the identity of the Christ of the 
Old Testament, with Jesus of Nazareth, and declare the 
former to be an entirely different person, one who will come 
into the world at some future time — that is an entirely dif- 
ferent thing. That is what I mean by deism. 

The former is an error in Christianity; the latter is an 
utter repudiation of every idea of divinity contained in the 
Old Testament ; for every idea of Deity in the Old Testa- 
ment is inherent in, and inseparable from, its Christ. And 
so, supposing Christianity to be true, this person of the Old 
Testament is inherent in, and inseparable from, Jesus of 
Nazareth. To repudiate the one, necessarily repudiates the 
other, whether the unbeliever says so or not. 

And it follows also, necessarily, that — supposing Jesus to 
be the Christ, he being set forth in the Old Testament as 
the sole object of all religious faith, and the exclusive foun- 
dation of all religious hope — to repudiate him, necessarily 
repudiates every religious principle the Old Testament 
claims to inculcate. The greater includes the less — the 
whole includes the parts. 

It is therefore simply impossible that any person can get 
farther from the Old Testament, in any and every direction — 
call it deism or what you will— than the modern Jew. 



THE JEWISH CHURCH. 123 



CHAPTER XYIII. 

WHAT BECAME OF THE JEWISH CHURCH, AND WHERE IS 

IT NOW? 

To answer this question intelligibly, we must first deter- 
mine precisely what we mean by the Jewish Church, Let 
that idea be first distinctly defined. 

"Without attempting to trace the history of religion, in its 
living professions, into remote antiquity, which is not neces- 
sary for our present purpose, we note the existence of what 
is commonly called the Church at any time before the 
period of Christ — say at the time of the return from the 
Babylonian captivity, about six hundred years before 
Christ. 

We find here what we commonly call a Church. They 
have their Bible, their membership, their faith, forms of 
worship, terms of initiation, government, etc. Some of the 
members are pious, and, as is the case now, some are not ; 
some understand their Bible and theory of faith but poorly, 
and some better. 

At this particular time, from various causes, the Church 
had become reduced in numbers greatly indeed, so that it 
counted, according to the best authorities, something under 
forty-three thousand souls. But, large or small, there it 
was, a distinct, visible community. 

And as some died, others came in in two difierent ways. 



124 WHAT BECAME OF THE JEWISH CHURCH^ 

First, the cliildren of the members, v/ho did not fail to be 
initiated, and be kept in the Church ; and secondly, all 
persons from without were always invited in ; and at times 
many came in, and their children mixed with the mass ; 
and so the association not only continued, but increased — 
so much so, that by the time of Christ it numbered perhaps 
six or seven millions. 

And at the time of Christ a very large number left the 
Church, as we have seen, be<?ause they would not believe 
that Jesus was the Christ. 

Of the condition of the Church at this period we have 
already spoken, and shall have occasion to allude to it here- 
after. They all professed the written religion of the -Old 
Testament, though many but poorly understood it. The 
great mass of people, being unable to read, were subject to 
the incorrect teachings of others. Still they held their 
regular Sabbath-day worship, very much as it is seen with 
us now. 

Those of them who did not follow the apostasy of the 
unbelievers, simply remained where they were, professing 
the same religion of the same Scriptures handed do^^n by 
the Church from remote ages. 

And what became of the rule by which children born 
into the Church became members of it by being personally 
initiated into it by their parents ? 

The rule continued intact, and is the rule now, without 
change or variation. The rule now is, that all children be 
dedicated to God and the Church ; and if some or many 
neglect this, that does not change the rule. We sometimes 
hear it said that it is the duty of believing parents to do this ; 
but I can see no difference. The neglect of one duty can- 
not relieve a person from the obligation of another. I 
confess it might not be expected that the people who had 
never heard of revealed religion should do their duty to 



AND WHERE IS IT NOW? 125 

their children; but still, religious duty is absolutely uni- 
versal to mankind. 

But it is suggested, perhaps, that the Church now, in the 
strictest and most proper sense, consists of truly pious per- 
sons, though they are in outward association with others 
who believe historically and philosophically the revealed 
religion, but who are nevertheless not truly converted and 
pious. 

Yes, and in these respects it is now about as it always 
was. In the Jewish Church, as we call it, there were those 
who were pious ; and secondly, those who believed theoretic- 
ally and performed the external duties of religion, but 
were not truly converted. And in the third place, there 
were those who believed in the religion of the Church 
generally or nominally, and so wxre not idolaters, though 
they were not, by personal initiation and recognition, mem- 
bers of the Church. 

Of this last class, I remark that it is the mistake of 
some who suppose that all the descendants of the Jewish 
people continued to be Jews ; that is, were initiated members 
of the Church. This was the rule, then as now, that all 
should keep their children in the Church, and keep them- 
selves in ; but it was formerly, as it is now, that many did 
neither. In many ways, many descendants of members of 
the Church got out of the Church; and their children 
stayed out or came in as the case chanced to be. There 
were always as many ways to get out of the Church as 
there are now ; nor was it ever any more difficult to «tay 
out than it is now. 

We speak, therefore, of the Church before the time of 
Christ just as we would now, and we use the word in this 
sense or in that as we do now. 

Then, what became of the Church as it existed at and 
before the time of Christ ? It continued — ^simply continued. 



126 WHAT BECAME OF THE JEWISH CHURCH, 

That is all. It suffered neither change, interregnum, nor 
dismemberment. It suffered the loss of a very large num- 
ber of its members by the defection about Jesus, but it 
continued, and is here now. 

The Jewish Church unquestionably existed in complete 
ecclesiastical entireness at and during the ministry of the 
Lord ; and it simply continued to exist It never dissolved 
— it never suffered molestation — it was never spoken against 
by Christ, his followers or friends. The personal member- 
ship of the Saviour and the apostles in it was fully recog- 
nized during the whole of all of their lives. No dream of any 
new or any other Church was ever entertained by Christ, or 
any of his friends. The human aspects of the Church — 
that is, its government, its visible modes of w^orship, etc. — 
were never objected against by anybody in those times, so 
far as we have any information. 

As before, and as will be hereafter more fully explained, 
the unbelieving , or rejecting portion of the Jews, by rejecting 
Christ, of course ceased to worship in fellowship with those 
who received and acknowleged Christ ; and so by this very 
act they left the Church. That was leaving the Church. I 
know very well that they continued the same forms of 
external w^orship as were common to both parties pre- 
viously ; but having abandoned the religion of the Church 
wholly and entirely as they did — not partially — and 
having set up a system of antichristian deism, they 
adopted a totally new religion, it cannot be said that they 
continued to be the Church. You cannot separate the 
Church from the religion of the Church. That party w^hich 
continued the same religious faith, and especially where 
they continued generally the same forms of worship, of 
course must be regarded as continuing the Church in 
preference to those who abandoned the faith of the 
Church wholly, though they may also have maintained gen- 



AND WHERE IS IT NOW? 127 

erally, or even exactly, the same outward forms of worship. 
Thus, when a part of the Church rose up against the 
religion of the Church, assailing and abandoning it, repudi- 
ating its very Christ and great Author, as did the rejecting 
Jews, the Church itself — that is, that portion of it which re- 
mained firm, receiving their Saviour — stood up well against 
this internal opposition. It not only did not suffer dis- 
memberment, but, however much individuals may have 
suffered persecution, the Church was never jostled in the 
slightest degree. Nor has it been jostled to this day. 

The Hebrew Church, as the Church prior to the coming 
of Christ is usually and very naturally called, being the 
true Church, was not changed for another, as some vainly 
imagine. It was' not changed, because change could not 
improve it, if for no other reason, because that which 
is true cannot be improved by change. Another Church, 
different from that written in and existing under the Old 
Testament, would have been as novel and as heretical as 
another Christ. 

The Church of Abraham, of Moses, and the prophets, was 
most certainly the Church of the true Christ. This is de- 
clared with certainty all through the Scriptures. And 
the question, whether it was identical with the Church 
afterward called Christian, is the question whether the 
Christ of the latter was the true Christ. Assuming that 
Jesus was the Christ, is the same as to affirm the identity 
of the Church in the periods before and after his coming. 

In the sixth of Acts we are told, that when the number 
of the disciples was multiplied — that is, when great num- 
bers of the members of the Church had acknowledged 
Jesus as Christ — there arose a murmuring of the Grecians 
against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected 
in the daily ministration. Now who were these "Grecians" 
and " Hebrews ?" They were two of the well-known de- 



128 WHAT BECAME OF THE JEWISH CHURCH, 

nominations of the Church for hundreds of years. Those 
in Palestine, and in and near about Jerusalem, were com- 
monly called Hebrews ; while those at a greater distance, 
and in foreign countries, were called Grecians, or Hellen- 
istic Jews. Here we see the same old Church that had 
always existed. 

And it must be observed, that this personal adherence 
to Christ — this increase of personal discipleship, one by 
one, of the then existing members of the Church, had 
nothing ecclesiastical about it — that is, there was no going 
out nor going into any Church about it. It was a thing 
naturally necessary in the Church, and by the members 
thereof from the very nature of the case. .They all believed 
the doctrine of Christy but no one could, until now, believe 
that Jesus was Christ. Now, this becomes vitally and 
naturally necessary. 

This point is highly important, and must be kept in 
view. The embracing of Christ, following and believing 
in him, was by no means a new doctrine, but an old one. 
It was the old, central and fundamental doctrine of the 
Church. But this particular phase of it must necessarily 
be new, viz., the recognition of Jesus as the Christ. That 
phase of the question never could have been even con- 
sidered before. And of course all the pious Jews, those 
who read and understood the Scriptures properly, and who 
otherwise followed the dictates of true piety, all those 
received Christ, as did also many others w^ho from time 
time to time, on the celebrated day of Pentecost, and at 
other times, became pious. 

Burkitt, in his Notes on the third of Matthew, says 
of the Pharisees and Sadducees, who came to John and 
were baptized, " It was matter of wonder and admiration 
to see such men turn proselytes." 

I marvel at such an expression by a theologian ! The 



AND WHERE IS IT NOW? 129 

learned commentator certainly does not mean what he says. 
And yet I acknowledge you will find the same error 
substantially in the works of many other authors of dis- 
tinction. 

Turn proselytes! From what, and to what, were they 
proselyted? All we know of them is, that now, at the 
first time when in the nature of things it was practicable, 
they outwardly and plainly acknowledged and subscribed 
to a tenet, or rather a fact, of their own religion. They 
acknowledged the personal presence of their own Christ, 
according to their own faith, because now, for the first 
time, he was present. Is that being proselyted ? 

Persons out of the Church, and holding an untrue faith, 
are, or ought to be, proselyted into both. But persons 
already in the Church, and professing the revealed religion, 
to what are they proselyted ? 

Those who went to John's baptism did not turn proselytes, 
most assuredly, though it is highly probable, in many, 
if not in most cases, they became greatly revived in relig- 
ion, and much enlightened in the principles of the faith 
they already professed. And I do not see any cause of 
wonder in this. The wonder with me is, that religious, 
or nominally religious men, both then and now, do not 
revive and increase in religious knowledge and piety more 
than they do. 

The Pharisees and Sadducees no doubt now, by con- 
fession and repentance, became convinced of some hurtful 
errors, became revived in their religion, and awakened to 
the great fact that the Saviour had come. But certainly 
these things did not touch their ecclesiastical relationship, 
nor their faith in the revealed Scriptures. 

^ I have now before me a treatise on the Church, by the 
Kev. Josephus Anderson, of Florida, a gentleman said to be 
a Methodist minister of standing, and a man of fair attain- 
5 



130 THE JEWISH CHURCH. 

merits. He disposes of the Jewish Church in a manner 
sufficiently summary, at least, as follows: "The Jewish 
Church was abandoned and forsaken of God.'' 

Mr. Anderson says that a Church may cease to be a 
Church of God ; that God threatened the Church of Lao- 
dicea with a similar fate to that which he visited upon 
the Jewish Church. He is mistaken. In the first place, 
the Churches in the two cases are very dissimilar things. 
The Church at Laodicea was a mere society or local 
neighborhood branch of the Church, which might be easily 
displaced without affecting the Church ; but for God to 
abandon and forsake "the Jewish Church," would be to 
abandon and forsake the entire religious system of mankind, 
and annihilate the religion of the world. 



THE CHURCH BEFORE AIIJ) SINCE CHRIST 131 



CHAPTEE XIX. 

THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO THE PERIODS BEFORE 
AND SINCE THE TIME OF CHRIST. 

In common parlance, we speak of the Jewish and Christian 
Churches as different things; and the question is worth 
looking into a moment. In what respects are they different? 
and in what respects are they identical ? 

We may very properly speak of the Church in any two 
periods as separate and distinct as to those periods; or, 
different periods of the Church may be distinguished and 
spoken of respectively in many other respects. But there 
could not be two Churches, either cotemporary or in differ- 
ent periods, unless there could be two entirely different 
religions; because Church means nothing more nor less 
than the association of religious persons, or persons profess-, 
ing the religion of the Bible. 

The notion that there may have been two Churches — 
true, divine Churches — grows out of the erroneous supposi- 
tion that the Church is a mere positive institution ; that is, 
that the Church is first formed, with positive laws, and then 
people are invited into it. 

One difficulty with such a supposition is, that no such 
formation ever took place in the world as a matter of historic 
fact. No Church was ever organized — Jewish or Christian — 
by positive enactments, at any time and place, with or with- 



132 BELATION OF THE CHURCH TO THE 

out Divine authority. The Church comes into being in a 
totally different way. 

Religious people — from the very nature of religion — 
associate; that is, they associate religiously, by meeting 
together for religious promotion ; and hence, they need rules 
of association; and so, the Church is the natural result. 
Religion is not the product of the Church : the Church is 
the product of religion, though they co-work and promote 
each other. And hence, the Church becomes the unavoid- 
able and necessary result of religion wherever it exists, 
without any outside, special agency, or direct means or 
effort to make it. The Church, therefore, comes about of 
itself. Religion and Church are necessary concomitants of 
each other; it is impossible to suppose the one without 
supposing the other. Religion, from its very social nature — 
love to God and to the brethren — and this brotherly good- 
will and affection being exceedingly social and reciprocal — 
cannot exist in the absence of that kind and degree of 
association which we call Church. Religion brings its vota- 
ries together for mutual good. The law of its gravitation 
is as universal as that of any other gravitation. Religion 
is coherent, cohesive, attracting, adhesive; it is mutual, 
reciprocal, and transcendently social ; mutual attraction is 
.its central power. 

"We know that we have passed from death unto life, 
because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his bro- 
ther abideth in death." 1 John iii. 14. 

But the Church is never the same in any two periods, in 
every respect. The Church previously, and during and 
after the bondage in Egypt, must have been different, in 
many important respects ; and yet no one will pretend that 
the one ceased to be, and another arose, in these changes. 
And again, after the Israelites left Mount Sinai, important 
changes took place in Church affairs; and also at the 



PERIODS BEFORE AND SINCE CHRIST. 133 

entrance into Palestine; and later, when the Jews were 
carried into Babylon, and at many other periods, very 
great changes took place in the external matters and man- 
ners of the Church ; but these changes did not affect the 
continued identity of the Church. 

On some of these occasions the Church suffered more 
change in external things than at the time of Christ ; but 
they had nothing to do with the identity of the Church. 
There was never a time when there were not persons pro- 
fessing the revealed religion ; and so there was not a time 
w^hen religious association did not exist. And so the Church 
continued uninterruptedly. The refusal of a great number 
of Jews at the time of Christ to receive him as the Saviour, 
and their consequent apostasy, did not, in the slightest 
degree, affect the being of the Church. 

Mr. Watson's Biblical and Theological Dictionary, Arti- 
cle Church, makes the following very judicious remarks: 
" Hence we may learn that at the coming of the Messiah, 
there was not one Church taken away and another set up in 
its room ; but the Church continued the same in those that 
were the children of Abraham according to the faith. It is 
common with divines to speak of the Jewish and Christian 
Churches as though they were two distinct and totally differ- 
ent things ; but that is not a correct view of the matter. 
The Christian Church is not another Church, but the very 
same that was before the coming of Christ ; having the 
same faith in it, and interested in the same covenant. 
Great alterations, indeed, were made in the outward state 
and condition of the Church, by the coming of the Messiah.'* 

But then — by the way — ^how can Mr. Watson, after 
writing the above, place the Jews, who composed the Church 
before Christ, in the same religious and ecclesiastical cate- 
gory with the modern or rejecting Jews f See our quota- 
tion from him in Chapter XVI. If the Church continued 



134 THE CHURCH BEFORE AND SINCE CHRIST. 

straightforward, uninterruptedly, and is the same now it 
formerly was, then that is the same as to say that those who 
rejected Christ — ^he being the Head of the Church- — left the 
Church, They did not leave the new Christian Church, for 
there was no such new Church : they left the Church they 
were in ; and it is notorious they stay out of it and oppose 
it still. The Jews' — ^be they many or few — who remained 
in their former position, according to Watson as above, 
continued to be the Church ; and all who have joined with 
them still so continue. And so, if Mr. Watson is right in 
the one case — as he most certainly is — ^then he is wrong in 
the other. 

Thus we conclude that the Jewish Church, and the Chris- 
tian Church, are not in any sense two Churches ; but there 
are merely two chronological periods of the Church. Two 
different Churches with one divinely-prescribed religion, is 
an absurdity, and can be supposed only by an entirely erro- 
neous idea of what is meant by Church. 



CONCERNINa THE SACRAMENTS. 135 



CHAPTER XX. 

CONCERNING THE SACRAMENTS, AND THE CHANGES IN THE 
MODES OF ADMINISTERING THEM WHICH BECAME NECES- 
SARY AT THE COMING OF CHRIST. 

In the very nature of religion, there seem to be two 
sacraments naturally called for. This is so, because human 
religion possesses a twofold aspect in the mind and experi- 
ence of men. These two aspects might be called personal 
and social. First, religion has to do with the direct and 
immediate relation between the individual man and his 
Maker : irrespective of other considerations, man owes per- 
sonal fealty to God. Secondly, man is not only an indi- 
vidual, with the personal obligation, but, as an integral 
part of the social community^he is his brother's keeper, and 
is therefore under an obligation, in the direction of the 
multitude around him, to make them religious too. The 
former might be called the personal, and the latter the social, 
obligation ; or, the one is initiatory, and the other commemo- 
rative. 

Now, what is sacrament ? Sacrament means obligation — 
by common usage, religious obligation exclusively. I insist 
that we do not need a spy-glass to look at a thing which lies 
just before our eyes. 

But an obligation — any kind of obligation — is one thing, 
and the external manner in which you fix, seal, and make 



136 CONCERNINa THE ' SACRAMENTS — 

patent the promise or underta.king to perform the obliga- 
tion, is another and different thing. And those writers who 
have failed to make and explain this distinction, have failed 
to give us a rational idea of the sacraments. The obligation 
itself is one thing ; but the external manner in which you 
administer the obligation — that is, the outward promise to 
perform the obligation — is another thing; 

If I owe a man one hundred dollars, the obligation to 
remunerate exists ; but the giv ing of the bond acknowledges 
the obligation and makes it patent. The rite of marriage 
administers and fixes a previously existing obligation. An 
oath seals or fixes an obligation. In brief parlance, we call 
a promissory note an obligation. Strictly, it is only the 
ceremony or manner in which the obligation was acknowl- 
edged. A conveyance of land is first made, and then the 
formula of a deed, acknowledgment, etc., fixes and makes 
patent the obligation so existing. 

And so Mr. Watson well explains that, " The Latin word 
sacramentuniy in its largest sense, may signify a sacred cere- 
mony,* and is the appellation also of the military oath of 
fidelity taken by the Roman soldiers." Sacrament means 
obligation. Eeligion has, naturally, two obligations, or a 
twofold obligation : the personal and the social — ^the initi- 
atory and the commemorative — as above explained. These 
obligations, or sacraments, like all other human obligations 
of a high and solemn character, are acknowledged by appro- 
priate and significant rites, actions, or ceremonies. 

Those which religion naturally imposes — first, to be per- 
sonally loyal and obedient to God; and secondly, to let 
your religious light shine for the mutual advantage of 
the entire community of man — ^are of course not peculiar or 
confined to any particular age, period, or country — belong no 
more to the period since than before the personal appearance 
of Christ. The sacraments, then, are common to all periods 



MODES OF ADMINISTERING THEM. 137 

and all possible conditions and circumstances of living men. 
But it does not thence, by any means, follow that the mode 
of administering the sacraments must be always the same. 
Indeed, a little reflection will show any one that this could 
not be the same before and after Christ's human life and 
death. 

There are certain external religious actions w^hich we call 
ritual, and which are used in teaching and inculcating 
religious truths and doctrines, which must necessarily be 
changed on the coming of Christ. These changes do not 
rest upon any mere arbitrary command, or ordinance, but 
upon the nature of things. Before that occurrence, every 
thing that was done was done hejore Christ was seen, and 
so pointed forward to the great facts of his life and death. 
Afterward, every thing was after these things, and so 
points to them retrospectively. The faith of religion in the 
one case, to be the same always, requires confidence in some- 
thing that would be ; and in the other, in something that 
has been. 

And so some ritual customs and modes, exceedingly use- 
fiil and appropriate before Christ's appearance, would be 
inappropriate, and even absurd, afterward. Christ was the 
very same Saviour in both periods — stood always in the 
same relation to sinners, and saved men ; while in the one 
case his great atoning acts were in the future, and in the 
other they were in the past. 

See, then, how wisely the modes of administering the 
sacraments wxre arranged before Christ's appearance, and 
how aptly they answered to man's nature and circumstances, 
while the sacraments themselves simply continued — ^passing 
smoothly along down the Church through the period of the 
Saviour's life and death, and now being administered by 
such other ritual acts as still commend themselves to both 
our conscience and our reason. 



138 CONCERNING THE SACRAMENTS — 

BaptisDi, — The nature of man on the one hand, and of 
religion on the other, are such that, in order to the growth 
and prosperity of the latter, it is necessary for its professors 
to be distinguished from others by some certain, well-under- 
stood mark of separation, which they themselves will readily 
recognize. 

To this it may be answered, that there is nothing essen- 
tially religious in such badges and tokens. That may be 
very true ; and yet it is just as true that neither is there 
any thing essentially religious in a Sabbath-day, in hours 
of worship, preaching religion, nor in a printed Bible, or 
other books. But these things are all great, subsidiary 
helps. 

A very good way to test the value of any thing is, to 
suppose its entire absence. Then suppose the absence of the 
sacrament called circumcision, with nothing to take its 
place, from among the Israelites. In this respect alone, 
looking no farther, circumcision must have been a great 
religious advantage to the Jewish people. 

But it answered another important end. Religion now, 
and for centuries past, is much interested in the religious 
history of the early Jews. The truth of this history — its 
rites, covenants, prophecies, and adumbrations — have much 
to do with religion now, and at every other period, past and 
future. It is in the highest degree useful, if not necessary, 
for religion at all times to have at hand some well-authen- 
ticated historic certificate by which its antiquity and the 
agency of God in its establishment may be asserted and 
tested. Circumcision is that certificate. It was always at 
hand, and always spoke historically on these points, in lan- 
guage not to be mistaken. It was always both commemo- 
rative and adumbrant of other religious facts. At any 
historic period it fixes, without the possibility of error, its 
own history and antiquity. Circumcision rnvst date back 



MODES OF ADMINISTERING THEM. 139 

to its supposed origin ; or, if introduced into the Church at 
a later period, the people of that age would know it was 
introduced then, and could therefore commemorate nothing 
beyond that period. And so the absence of any historical 
knowledge of a later introduction is the most certain evi- 
dence there can be that it was introduced when and as it 
purports to have been. 

The simple fact of the existence of the Lord's Supper, as 
we see it now, is, when taken in connection with the absence 
of any history of its introduction at a period later than is 
asserted, the most conclusive proof there can he that it was 
used by Christ at the time and for the purposes stated. 
Nay, more : there is no other testimony that could be viewed 
by the human understanding which could demonstrate that 
fact beyond question. If the lives of individual persons 
had been miraculously preserved from that day to this, their 
testimony might be doubted ; but the evidence produced by 
a concurrence of circumstances cannot be doubted. Where 
there is no art, there can be no falsehood. 

And again, in the third place, sacrament means obliga- 
tion ; and so the person submitting to circumcision, thereby 
seals a promise to God and the Church to carry out and 
observe all the things implied in Church-membership. 
Every Jew was under this obligation, and the rite was the 
seal of the same, binding him to be true to the faith. 

These were the three principal things which made up the 
meaning and end of this sacrament. Any particular form 
was, perhaps, not strictly necessary, but something to answer 
these natural demands was necessary. One of the most 
necessary things about the form of its administration was, 
that it should be fixed, permanent, and not subject to alter- 
ation or change. 

And now, it may be inquired, if the sacrament of circum- 
cision be thus necessary, in the very nature of religion, 



140 CONCERNING THE SACRAMENTS — 

without reference to countries, times, or circumstaBces, why 
did it not continue after Christ ? 

The sa€7*ame7it of mitioiion did continue uninterruptedly. 
It was not circumcision which was necessary, but the sacra- 
ment of which circumcision was the outward performance. 
Nothing was changed but the fonn of administering the 
sacrament, and this was done for most obvious and necessary 
reasons. 

The particular form in which this sacrament was admin- 
istered before the coming of Christ, had peculiar significancy 
and appropriateness to that period ; but after that time — or 
rather, after that event — it would have been not only mean- 
ingless, but absurd and impossible. 

All the forms of worship that could be so adopted, before 
Christ's coming, were adumbrant — foreshadowing, of that 
great event, as these afterward were commemorative of the 
same thing. And these things had reference, not only to 
the event itself, but were illustrative of some of the leading 
characteristics of the event ; and hence its painful and 
bloody character. It looked forward^ and taught the Jew 
what we afterward saw. So it would have been not only 
without meaning, but without truth, afterward. St. Paul 
repeatedly explains this in his Epistles to the Galatians, 
the Romans, and elsewhere. 

" Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, 
Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every 
man that is circumcised, that he is a, debtor to do the whole 
law." Gal.v. 2, 3. 

These observations of the Apostle are an exposition of the 
Old Testament doctrines and teaxihings on the subject of cir- 
cumcision; so that however well or however ill any one 
may have understood the Old Testament text on this point, 
this authoritative exegesis opens out its doctrine to us, and 
shows that that mode of administering the sacrament of 



MODES OF ADMi:5riSTEEINa THEM. 141 

initiation was confined to that period of the Church. If we 
did not know it before, we know it now; if any one mis- 
read the Old Testament on this subject before, there is no 
excuse for doing it longer, becau^ here we have an author- 
itative exposition of what it does mean. 

What particular traits of the work or character of Christ 
circumcision pointed to or illustrated, may be questions on 
which men might differ ; but that it pointed the worshiper 
forward to the Saviour's coming and work, and therefore 
must cease, by virtue of its own inherent nature and consti- 
tution, on the occurrence of these events, is, after this and 
other explanations, no longer an open question. 

It is certain that the sacrament of initiation before Christ 
was administered by the rite of circumcision, and that the 
same sacrament was by Christ administered, and com- 
manded ever after to be administered, by what we call bap- 
tism. Then, if we had no other means of exegesis — suppos- 
ing Christ to be infallible authority — ^the Christ — ^we now 
know that circumcision was confined to that period of the 
Church. Therefore, it follows, as Mr. Watson says, that to 
continue it, is a clearly implied denial that Jesus was the 
Christ, the expected seed of Abraham. Or, in other 
words, to reverse the proposition — supposing Jesus to be the 
Christ, it follows, that the circumcising mode of administer- 
ing the initiating sacrament was certainly, by the law of the 
Old Testament, confined to the period brfore Christ. The 
infallible teachers — Christ and the apostles — so explain the 
law, and I accept their construction of it. 

I have not seen the irregular circumcision of Timothy sat- 
isfactorily explained. There were some local reasons for it, 
in Paul's judgment, which are now quite beyond our reach ; 
and if we had them, they would likely prove quite unim- 
portant. Very likely it was to meet some local prejudices. 
But it was not the sacrament which was thus administered 



142 CONCERNING THE SACRAMENTS — 

by circumcision. Timothy must undoubtedly have been 
baptized long before this ; and Paul could not have admin- 
istered this sacrament twice. The mere external act was 
performed, not the sacrament. 

Kow, in what form must this sacrament be administered 
after Christ ? The nature of religion does not point out any 
particular form as necessary, though it plainly indicates 
some things on the subject. The form would undoubtedly 
be fixed and unchangeable, for there is nothing in the nature 
of things which could admit of a change in this particular, 
save the coming, the personal appearance of Messiah ; and 
of course it must be either prospective or retrospective of 
that event. 

Among many possible ones, one particular form was 
adopted. Its significance, naturalness, and appropriateness 
are apparent. It symbolizes some of the most important 
truths of religion. I do not see the force of those argu- 
ments w^hich go to prove that the form of the ceremony 
used in baptism is peculiarly and strikingly commemorative. 
It seems to me — supposing, of course, that you have one 
changeless form — that any one of many supposable ones 
would be well suited to commemorate Christ. I find the 
value of this particular use of water in its appropriate 
symbolic teachings. 

And in adopting this form, the Saviour did not introduce 
a new thing, before quite unknown in religious worship ; 
but without making any striking innovation, he caused the 
obviously necessary and natural thing implied in circum- 
cision to vary and modify itself into w^hat has since been 
called baptism. The name baptism was given to it, like 
that of many other descriptive nouns, merely incidentally, 
being derived from the material used ; but as in all similar 
instances, it soon came to be employed to mean the thing — 
that is, the sacrament itself. 



MODES OF ADMINISTERING THEM. 143 

The two tilings are but one thing ; that is, they are two 
different modes of administering a sacrament, or religious 
obligation. Before Christ, the form was adapted to, and 
significant of, that condition of the Church ; after that, the 
form must needs be changed, and it was changed, to meet a 
post-Messianic state of the Church. Baptism — that is, the 
sacrament — is exactly what circumcision was. They are 
not two things, the one succeeding the other; they are one 
and the same identical thing. Marriage is the same thing, 
the same obligation performed in this kind of ceremony 
or in that. There are several modes of administering the 
obligation of an oath, but the obligation is always the same. 

It is not true, therefore, that the sacrament of baptism 
succeeds to that of circumcision, as is oftentimes taught. 
The sacrament remained unchanged and unchangeably the 
same. The external mode of administering the sacrament, 
and that only, was changed. 

The term "instituted" is frequently used in describing 
the origin of this sacrament in the present form ; but those 
who do so, generally show and teach substantially, or ought 
to do so, that they use it in a diluted and modified sense. 
The form of administering was new, not the sacrament. 

Mr. Watson says : " That our Lord instituted such an 
ordinance as baptism, is plain from the commission given to 
the apostles after his resurrection, and recorded in Matt, 
xxviii. 19, 20." 

That depends upon what he means by " instituted." The 
quotation from Matthew proves that our Lord recognized 
and established the obligation of fealty to God, of initiation 
into the Church of God, in that form ; and it is well known 
that in that form it was new in the Church ; but it does not 
prove that he then originated, founded, set up anew, the 
gacrament itself The former he did — the latter he did not 
do. The sacrament — that is, the sacred obligation — ^is one 



144 CONCERNING THE SACRAMENTS — 

thing ; the outward form of its administration is another. 
And so I conclude that the sacrament implied, meant, 
intended, and solemnized by baptism, was not a new" thing 
at the time of Christ, but is an old thing, as old as the 
Church. The form of the ceremony must be changed, of 
necessity, for the reason that before Christ it pointed forward 
to his future coming, w4iile afterward it must point back- 
ward to the past event. 

The Lord's Supper. — And the same course of reasoning 
meets the case in this sacrament also. The sacrament itself 
is at least as old as the deliverance from the bondage in 
Egypt. The history of the Egyptian bondage, and deliver- 
ance therefrom, are highly significant and emblematic, not 
of these people, but of religion. The feast of Passover is 
full of reason, naturalness, and significancy. Religion is 
deliverance, protection, safety ; and at the same time that 
the passover itself taught lessons of discipline, dependence, 
and confidence in God, it conducted the mind from primary 
teaching to ripe scholarship in religion, and illustrated the 
great principles of God's dealings with man. 

In the smiting judgments which God visited on that 
wicked land, he passed over the dwellings of the Israelites, 
sparing them, and giving them divine protection. This 
is the substance of religion. But in order for this to make 
the proper impression, the people must see, understand, 
and appreciate it ; and they must also cooperate with God 
in it. 

Now, taking men naturally as we find them, how is this 
to be done ? The sparing of the first-born, and the actual 
deliverance from Egyptian bondage, were blessings con- 
ferred on the smallest fraction of the whole Israelitish 
race. It was done only to those who then lived. In a 
single generation afterward, there were none living upon 
whom these blessings were directly conferred. 



MODES OF ADMINISTERING THEM. 145 

There is no way conceivable to human reason, by which 
these great historic facts could be made to produce their 
proper and desired effect upon the entire Israelitish mind, 
so as to bring the hearts and sense of the people into 
cooperation with God in these teachings, but by perpetual 
commemoration. Hence, they were commanded to celebrate 
this deliverance by a feast of commemoration, of perpetual 
recurrence. By this means, the thing itself, though it 
occurred one hundred years ago, and now five hundred, 
and now one thousand years ago, was kept fresh in the 
memory of all, producing all the quick stimulant of recent 
occurrence. 

And at the same time that it did this immediately, 
objectively it reached forward by pre-representation, carry- 
ing the minds of those who understood it away into the 
future, and teaching the more teachable the great deliver- 
ance itself, which is the substance of all theology. 

The Israelitish passover was in the highest sense a sacra- 
ment. The ceremony of its observance was divinely pre- 
scribed, and the solemn obligation and acknowledgment 
were continuously renewed. In renewing this obligation 
of fidelity to God, the Israelite ate the paschal lamb and 
unleavened bread in solemn token of the deliverance past, 
and in religious anticipation of the infinitely greater thing 
which this signified. 

Thus things went on until Christ came. And what now 
is to be done? The sacrament must be continued, or 
religion must lose one of its great twin characteristics* 
It can have in its present form no specific commemorative 
tie binding the individual Christian to his Saviour* It 
commemorates the deliverance from the bondage in Egypt. 
Of necessity, therefore, there must be some changes in it, 
or %% becomes both meaningless and absurd. These obviously 
iftoce^ary changes are the following : 



146 CONCERNING THE SACRAMENTS 

Fii'sL Something must be substituted in the place of the 
paschal lamb, for that j9re-represented Christ. It looked 
forward to the shedding of Christ's blood, and now that 
has been shed. 

Secondly. The great deliverance by Christ, so long antici- 
pated in every act of worship, must now, of necessity, 
be celebrated, if religious worship be continued at all, 
as a thing held in remembrance. It is now behind you, 
and you must so represent it in your acts of worship, 
or those acts are without meaning. 

The 7iame of the sacrament became changed at this time, 
like that of baptism, Church, etc., by mere adventitious cir- 
cumstances. The feast, as celebrated by Jews at this period, 
had, by custom, become a sujyper, the evening meal being 
the principal meal in that country in those days. A feast, 
instead of being a dining, as with us, was a supper ; and 
nothing is more natural than that it should be called the 
Lord's supper, he being the great object of it. 

And that this Lord's supper is the same identical sacra- 
ment, so long known as the feast of the passover, is seen 
indubitably, not only from the reason of the thing, and the 
demonstrative scope of Scripture, but from the express 
words and actions of the Lord himself It was expressly 
and repeatedly called "the passover." The occasion, the 
circumstances — every thing attest it to be the passover; 
that is, the sacrament previously called by that name. 
There was not, nor is there to this day, any thing new 
about it, save the outward form of administering it, and 
its commemorative character, as it applies to Christ. 

In administering it, we can no longer use such words and 
actions as refer to the Egyptian deliverance as a type, and 
the work of Christ as the antitype; but our words and 
actions must refer to the atoning death of Christ directly, 
as an accomplished fact. 



MODES OF ADMINISTERINa THEM. 147 

The apostatizing Jews who renounced their religion at 
the time of Christ, by denying their Saviour, forsook also 
their passover. Had they adhered to it^ it w^ould necessa- 
rily have carried them right into Christianity, or rather, 
in other words, would have kept them in it. Those who 
suppose that the unbelieving Jews continued the passover 
in their worship, are under a great mistake. They may 
have continued some or all of the verbiage and manipula- 
tion, in w^hich its ceremonies were performed; but they 
totally changed its character, object, end, and meaning. 
So that it is no longer the same, but quite another. 

Before the advent the passover, according both to the 
law of their religion and the universal understanding, was 
essentially and preeminently Christian. Will any man 
say it was not ? Will any man say that, either in theory 
or practice, it possessed any feature or trait of character 
not wholly and essentially Christian? It meant and incul- 
cated all the principles, truths, and meaning of the true 
Messiah, and it meant and inclucated nothing else. 

And now, after this very same identical Christ made his 
appearance in. accordance with this sacrament, what did 
some of these worshipers do ? They repudiated him, thus 
wholly severing the sacrament from all connection with 
its end and meaning — thus dissolving the sacrament from 
all connection with its Christ, and attaching to it another 
and wholly different, and a wholly false Christ. The 
retention of some of the words and actions formerly used, 
w^as exactly the same as it w^ould be now for a body of 
Christians to apostatize and turn Mohammedans, and eat 
bread and drink wine in the worship of Mohammed, or 
any other false Christ, either past or future. 

Thus the feasts of the unbelieving Jews are a totally 
different thing from that which the same persons celebrated 
previously. Previously they celebrated a sacrament essen- 



148 CONCERNING THE SACRAMENTS— 

tially Christian. Christianity was not an ingredient in it : 
it was every thing that was in it which made it in any 
sense religious. But now they celebrate a feast which is 
essentially profane, idolatrous, and deistical. The very 
essence of its religion is to repudiate — even to abhor the 
very Christ of the sacrament they formerly celebrated. 

No two things can therefore be not only more dissimilar, 
but more hostile to each other, than the passover before 
the advent, and the so-called passover of the unbelieving 
Jews afterward. 

But the same sacramental feast celebrated by believing 
Jews, and by Gentiles who associated with them religiously, 
though incidentally it took on a different name, was a sim- 
ple continuance, because its character was identical and 
unchanged, though some of the outward forms were changed 
of natural necessity, as explained above. 

Much of the false religions of the world correspond in 
external form to the true religion; and especially might 
we expect this to be the case with persons formerly profess- 
ing and being familiar with the religion of the Bible, and 
apostatizing from it. 

And again, we must remember that outright, professed 
departures from Scripture are seldom. Many of the here- 
sies of the world claim to conform to the Bible, but wrest 
the word from its proper meaning. This is the case with 
the unbelieving Jews; or, if they are following the Old 
Testament, then it is certain that Christianity is idolatry. 
But the truth is, there is not one religious idea, fully under- 
stood, in the Old Testament, which is not repudiated by the 
unbelieving Jews. 

Thus it is apparent that the Church, the religious people, 
the worship, the sacraments, all continued straightforward, 
uninterruptedly, and without deviation, through the period 
of the lifetime of the Saviour and the days of the apostles. 



MODES OP ADMINISTERING THEM. 149 

The name of the Church became changed from circum- 
stances entirely adventitious, but which are nevertheless 
apparent and natural ; and the name of the sacraments 
became changed in the same way and for the same reasons. 
And nothing can be more natural, or apparently necessary, 
than the change in the external forms of administering the 
sacraments. The names of the sacraments before Messiah, 
were called after the modes of administering them; and 
just so they chance to be since. 

I ask, then, what is there essentially new in this sacra- 
ment? If this is a new sacrament, then there are three 
sacraments. And then it is apparent, that in the sense 
there are three, there are threescore. If you go beyond the 
two obligations, or the twofold obligation, viz., fealty to 
God and duty to man, then you may call every fact and 
doctrine of religion a sacrament, which nullifies the very 
idea of a sacrament. 



150 CONCERNINa THE 



CHAPTER XXI. 

CONCERNING THE JUDAIZING TEACHERS : WHO WERE THEY? 
WHAT WERE THEIR ERRORS? OR, WERE THERE ANY 
SUCH PERSONS? 

When the question arose in the Church, as it must neces- 
sarily have arisen, whether Jesus was the Christ, and the 
Church split into two great parties upon this question, the 
one apostatizing from the faith and prophecies of the Scrip- 
tures, and the other adhering thereto, there was, as might 
have been expected, a good deal of irregularity and confu- 
sion in the minds of many, respecting a number of questions 
likely to arise at this peculiar crisis of afiairs. The unset- 
tled views of some, and the extravagant and worldly belief 
of others, respecting their Messiah, as to his worldly king- 
ship, his civil relations, etc., together with the errors of 
Pharisees and others respecting some important religious 
doctrines, were very likely, if not indeed certain, to blind 
the minds of many on several religious questions. Hence 
it became difficult for many to understand how several 
things in the Church after Christ could be lawfully con- 
ducted. Not discerning the simple typical nature of cir- 
cumcision — its use, end, and purpose in the Church — and 
not distinguishing between the sacrament itself and the 
mere form of administering it, they did not see how the 
latter could be changed, or how it could be changed upon 



JUBAIZINa TEACHEKS. 151 

the appearance of Christ and be afterward administered in 
some other form. And there were also other things pertain- 
ing to the ceremonies of religion, which must naturally 
abate on the coming of Christ, and which could not ration- 
ally be continued thereafter, and which being misunderstood 
by some, they supposed they were to be continued. They 
did not see their adumbrant character. And so some serious 
questions arose among Christians of those times, as to the 
nature of these ceremonies and the necessity or propriety 
of continuing them. 

Arising out of these facts we have, in some of our current 
theology, explanations of these errors of what is called 
"Judaizing Teachers," or "Judaizing Christians," which I 
find it impossible to assent to. 

In Buck's Theological Dictionary, enlarged by Dr. Hen- 
derson, we read that, " Judaizing Christians are those who 
attempted to mingle Judaism and Christianity together. 
This was done to some extent in the apostles' days," etc. 

This language is unmistakably plain. Judaism is the 
common name given to the religion of the Church before 
Christ, as Christianity is the common name by which it is 
called afterward. This is strictly correct, literally ; and is, 
I believe, the common understanding. And the " Judaizing 
Christians," we are told, attempted to mingle these two 
things together ; and he tells us farther, that this attempt to 
mingle the Old Testament with the New, in one system of 
religion, was done to some extent in the apostolic days. 

I marvel at this, greatly ! For it is beyond all question 
true that this was not only done "to some extent in the 
apostles' days," but that it was done to the entire extent of 
the ability of all the apostles, and by every other orthodox 
minister of religion from those days to the present. Does 
Mr. Buck, or Dr. Henderson, or any other minister, teach 
difierently? The writers of the New Testament not only 



152 CONCERNING THE 

"mingle" their doctrines with those of the Old, but they 
teach the latter wholly and fully. 

The pious and learned Dr. Doddridge, Exposition, Gal. vi., 
p. 668, says that a scheme arose of blending Judaism with 
Christianity. And at p. 664, on Gal. iii., he speaks of the 
religion which Paul preached as being "a Christianity 
of which Judaism made no part." 

^^.-^ Does Dr. Doddridge exclude the written religion of the 
Old Testament from his theology? If so, then he is con- 
sistent with himself in this particular. But if not, then he 
teaches yes and no upon the very same identical proposition. 

I am sorry to have to say that other quotations, similar to 
the above, could be made from many other authors of high 
repute. But among them all, I know of nothing that any 
one has said beyond mere assertion. I have seen no attempt 
to inquire into the truth of the statements. Somebody 
stumbled into the error, and others seem to take it upon 
trust. 

The simple historic truth of the matter, and which I pre- 
sume will be specifically questioned by no one, is this : 

Quite a number of early Christians, who lived before, 
and during, and after the ministry of Christ — there were 
many such— imbibed and held errors of religious doctrine, 
both before and in the time of Christ's ministry ; and they 
carried those errors along with them, and still held them 
after the death of Christ and during the ministry of the 
apostles ; and with these errors they disturbed the faith 
of many. It was not the teachings of Judaism — the Old 
Testament — ^that did the harm, but the very reverse of it ; 
it was not the teaching of what Judaism was, but of what 
it was not, that did the harm. It was not the inculcation 
of " the original tenet of their brethren," as Mr. Watson 
says, but the inculcation of what the original tenet of their 
brethren was not, that was doing the harm, and that St. Paul 



JUBAIZING TEACHERS. 153 

complained of. It was not Judaism, but errors surrepti- 
tiously foisted upon Judaism, that was the ground of com- 
plaint. Surely there is a difference between what Judaism 
ivas and what it was mistaken to be by some who misunder- 
stood it. 

The teachers complained of taught that it was necessary 
to be circumcised in order to Church-membership. And, it 
may be inquired. Was not that an Old Testament doctrine? 

The answer is this : It was the Old Testament doctrine 
that circumcision should be used m and applied to the anti- 
Messianic period of the Church But without this essentially 
important understanding, it never was an Old Testament 
doctrine. The Old Testament teaches circumcision as a 
mode of administering the sacrament of personal adherence 
and fealty before Chrisfs human appearance ; but it not only 
does not teach that that mode of taking the sacrament is to 
continue to be used after that event, but it teaches that it 
cannot so continue. And then perhaps I might be required 
to produce some evidence from the Old Testament to show 
that that mode of administering the sacrament of personal 
adherence to God is thus limited to that period of the 
Church. This task is easily performed. 

Circumcision was typical, not of Christ, but of his visible 
appearance. It foreshadowed, or pre-represented, his coming. 
"Well, it could do this only before his life and death hap- 
pened. An occurrence cannot be /oreshadowed after it has 
happened* The very idea of circumcision limits its use and 
application to the anti-Messianic period. So that it is as 
fully and clearly a doctrine of the Old Testament as the 
New, that the rite cannot be performed after Christ. 

Mr. Watson, on this point — Biblical and Theological Dic- 
tionary, Article Judaizing Christians— says : " They accord- 
ingly displayed much zeal in support of the Mosaical 
economy." 



154. CONCERNINa THE 

This is most certainly, and, I do not hesitate to say, most 
clearly, the very reverse of the truth. They displayed much 
zeal in support, not of what the Mosaical economy was and 
is, but of what it was not For, in the Mosaical economy, 
circumcision was typical of Christ's painful and bloody 
death ; and therefore, according to that economy, it could 
be sacramentally performed only before that event. Who- 
ever therefore attempted to perform circumcision subsequent 
to Christ's death, did so contrary to the Mosaical economy, 
and in accordance with no economy or teaching in any part 
of Scripture. Mistaking and misunderstanding the Mosa- 
ical economy, they taught what it never did teach, and so, 
also, what no one understanding the Old Testament ever 
taught. 

Will Mr. Watson say there is any thing written in the 
New Testament, or was taught by Christ or his apostles, con- 
trary to a7iy thing in the Mosaical economy ? Very well, then ; 
why do we not now circumcise ? Because the Scriptures 
forbid it. The Old Testament limits it to the coming of 
Christ, and the New tells us that Christ has come. 

The authors above quoted, and others who might easily 
be quoted, call these mistaken teachers " Judaizing teach- 
ers." This is a misnomer. The meaning is that they were 
teachers of Judaism. In the particulars complained of, 
they certainly were not. Misunderstanding Judaism, they 
taught what the Scriptures did not teach. The true ground 
of complaint against them is, that they did 7iot, not that they 
did teach Judaism. 

Judaism — the written religion of the Old Testament — as 
it was and is, was the very thing needed to be taught. It 
was the religion which Christ and the apostles taught, and 
which all Christians row teach, repudiating no part of it. 
If not, why do we call it our Bible ? 

Mr. Watson says : "A great part of the Epistles of St. 



JUDAIZIXa TEACHERS. 155 

Paul is directed against the Judaizing teachers who incul- 
cated the original tenet of their brethren." The original 
tenet of their brethren must be intended to mean the true 
and genuine teachings of Moses. It would be doing Mr. 
Watson great injustice to understand him to allude to the 
erroneous teachings of some Pharisees and Sadducees, for 
they were very new things in the Church. So far from 
being original, they wxre not known until long* since the 
times of the last prophets. 

His teaching plainly is this : Certain Christian teachers, 
cotemporary with St. Paul, inculcated the original religious 
tenet of the Jews, as taught in the Scriptures ; and because 
they thus taught what the Scriptures taught, St. Paul 
directed much of his inspired tea^ching against them. 

This is palpably impossible. Either the Old Testament, 
or St. Paul's Epistles, or both, are uninspired and errone- 
ous, or they do not teach " against '' each other. Inspira- 
tion cannot teach against inspiration. 

St. Paul did never teach " against '* any thing in the Old 
Testament, nor against anybody for teaching any thing 
there found. If he did, then Christian theology is at an 
end. I hold that proposition to be unquestionable, and 
therefore conclude that these mistaken teachers of Christi- 
anity were endeavoring to teach, not Judaism, not any doc- 
trines of the Old Testament Scriptures, not any " original 
tenet " of the Jewish people, but an error in theology, a 
new doctrine, and a new error ; not only an error which 
never did exist in the Church before, but one which never 
could have existed before. Not discerning that Judaism 
limited the rite of circumcision (not the sacrament) to the 
period of the Church before Christ's coming, and not under- 
standing its nature, its adumbrant, foreshadowing character, 
they undertook to continue it after it was dead by the 
very conditions and limitations of its own being. To call 



156 THE JUDAIZING TEACHERS. 

them Judaizing teachers is, therefore, at least, a misnomer. 
St. Paul complained of these men for teaching error — for 
teaching for inspiration that which inspiration did not teach. 
Did St. Paul complain of them for teaching the truth ? 
Then he was a teacher of error. Inspiration anywhere, 
about any thing, is true, universally true. Let God be true, 
and every man a liar. 



DID CHRIST TEACH ANY NEW DOCTRINES? 15T 



CHAPTER XXII. 

DID CHRIST OR THE APOSTLES INTRODUCE OR TEACH^ANY 
NEW DOCTRINES, EITHER OF RELIGION OR MORALS, NOT 
ALREADY TAUGHT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES ? 

I ANSWER this important and significant question in the 
negative, without qualification. The theory of religion con- 
sists in doctrines. They are very difierent things from facts. 
The latter, as I understand, are introduced naturally, and 
serve the purpose of illustrating, explaining, making prac- 
tically familiar to the mind, the doctrines intended to be 
believed. The facts of the New Testament are, of course, 
all new — all facts are new. 

The doctrines of the Bible are by no means numerous ; 
they are not, however, capable of being enumerated with 
distinctive and specific certainty. Some doctrines may be 
looked at in various points of light, and hence may be 
regarded as one oi^as several. I will enumerate a few 
leading doctrines which^ on the whole, will be regarded as 
embracing all that is necessary to be believed on the subject 
of religion. 

It will not be questioned that the Being and Attributes of 
God are fully set forth in the Old Testament ; and also the 
Personality and Divinity of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost. 
On the last point reference nmy be made to Gen. i. 2, Isa. 
vi. 8, 9, Ps. exxxix. 7-12, Isa. xliv. 3, Joel ii. 28. 



158 DID CHRIST OR THE APOSTLES 

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is alluded to in Gen. i* 
26. " Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," 
etc.; and more fully in Gen. iii. 22, and xi. 7, Isa. xlviii. 16, 
17, and Zech. xiii. 7. 

Human Depravity is spoken of in Job xiv. 4. " Who can 
bring a clean thing out of an unclean," etc. The context 
makes the allusion plain. *^ Behold, I was shapen in 
iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me " — Ps. li: 6 ; 
and throughout nearly the whole of the Psalm. See also 
Ps. cxliii. 2, and elsewhere. 

The Atonement is clearly set forth in the fifty-third of 
Isaiah : " He was wounded for our transgressions ; he was 
bruised for our iniquities," etc.; and also in many other 
places. 

Moral Agency \^ thus taught in Deut. xxx. 19: "I call 
heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I 
have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing ; 
therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live ;" 
and in Josh. xxiv. 15: "Choose this day whom ye will 
serve," etc. 

Justification is also taught. "But there is forgiveness 
with thee, that thou mayest be feared." Ps. cxxx. 4. "And 
he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for 
righteousness." Gen. xv. 6. " How, then, can man be jus- 
tified with God ? or how can he be clean that is born of a 
woman?" Job xxv. 4. See also Ps^^cxliii. 2, and other 
places. 

The doctrine of Faith is set forth in many places. "And 
he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for right- 
eousness." Gen. XV. 6. " I will hide my face from them. 
I will see what their end shall be ; for they are a very 
froward generation, children in whom is no faith." Deut. 
xxxii. 20. " For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and 
that he shall gt^nd at the latter day upon the earth." Job 



TEACH ANY NEW DOCTRINES ? 159 

xix. 25. " If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to 
deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will 
deliver us." Dan. iii. 17. "Now when Daniel knew that 
the writing was signed, he went into his house ; and, his 
windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he 
kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and 
gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.'' Dan. 
vi. 10. See also in' the eleventh of Hebrews, the references 
to the faith of Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and other Old 
Testament saints. See also 2 Chron. xx. 20, Neh. ix. 8, and 
many other places. 

Repentance is plainly set forth in many places: in 
1 Kings viii. 47, Ps. vii. 12, Ezek. xviii., and many other 
places. 

The specific doctrine of Regeneration some may think 
less explicitly taught in the Old Testament than any of the 
foregoing ; and yet, it is so clearly to be inferred from several 
passages, and from the general tenor of the Old Testament, 
that the Saviour held Nicodemus culpable for not knowing 
and understanding it fully. "Art thou a master in Israel 
and knowest not these things ?" Dr. Doddridge paraphrases 
this language as follows : " Jesus then answered and said 
unto him. How, Nicodemus ! art thou a teacher of Israel, 
of so distinguished a rank and character, and dost thou not 
know these things, when so much is everyAvhere said in 
Scripture of the purifying and quickening operations of the 
Divine Spirit ? Compare Jer. xxxi. 33, 34, and Ezek. xxxvi. 
26, 27. It is high time thou shouldst be better informed 
concerning them." Expos, p. 57. The passages cited set 
forth the doctrine very plainly. 

The Witness of the Spirit is taught very plainly. " For I 
know that my Kedeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at 
the latter day upon the earth." Job xix. 25. " Blessed is 
the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in 



160 DID CHRIST OR THE APOSTLES 

-whose spirit there is no guile." Ps. xxxii. 2. Other quota- 
tions could be made. 

The general doctrine of the Holy Ghost is also a well- 
settled tenet of the Old Testament. The doctrine of what 
is called the gift of the Holy Ghost, as supposed to have been 
bestowed first on the day of Pentecost, is misunderstood by 
many. They seem to understand it in the sense of a totally 
new thing in religion. But surely it cannot be for a 
moment held that prior to this time God had not conde- 
scended to commune spiritually, that is, by and through 
the Holy Ghost, with men. The gift of the Holy Ghost at 
Pentecost was, in kind, the same as had been experienced 
thousands of times before and since. It was extraordinary 
or unprecedented in degree^ or in volume, but not in kind. 
This harmonizes naturally and beautifully with the occa- 
sion ; but it cannot be maintained that previously to this 
time men did not experience the operation of the Holy 
Spirit. Watson^s Biblical and Theological Dictionary, 
Article Holy Ghost, teaches well on this point. 

Sanctijkation is also plainly set forth. " Wash me thor- 
oughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin." 
Ps. li. 2. " Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew 
a right spirit within me." " Then will I sprinkle clean 
water upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filthi- 
ness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. Anew 
heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within 
you. And I will take away the stony heart out of your 
flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh." Ezek. xxxvi. 
25, 26. Other passages could be cited. 

The Possibility of Apostasy is taught in Ezek. xviii. 24, 
and other parts of the same chapter. " But when the right- 
eous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth 
iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that 
the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness 



TEACH ANY NEW DOCTRINES? 161 

that he hath done shall not be mentioned ; in his trespass 
that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, 
in them shall he die." See also Ezek. iii., xxxiii., and 
elsewhere. 

The Resurrection of the Body, " Though after my skin 
worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God ; 
whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, 
and not another ; though my reins be consumed within me." 
Job xix. 26. And in Ps. xvi. 10 : " For thou wilt not leave 
my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one 
to see corruption." And in Isa. xvi. 10 : " Thy dead men 
shall live ; together with my dead body shall they arise." 
But some still doubt whether the doctrine of the Besurreo 
tion was intended to be taught in the Old Testament. But 
this question is set at rest in the following manner : The 
Sadducees, who discarded this doctrine, in Matt. xxii. 23, 
undertook to confound the Saviour in regard to it, by sup- 
posing a case of seven brethren, who successively married 
the same woman. The doctrine, therefore, they argue, 
cannot be true, for, in the supposed resurrection, whose wife 
shall she be? The reply of the Saviour, so far as it is 
given to us, w^as laconic, but very full and comprehensive : 
"Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures." If you 
understood the Scriptures which you profess to believe, you 
would understand this doctrine, and w^ould see that there is 
no difficulty whatever in the case you suppose. Thus, the 
Saviour held that the doctrine was taught in the Old Testa- 
ment sufficiently plain for them to understand it, and they 
were held culpable for not understanding it from those 
teachings. 

The General Judgraent " Eejoice, O young man, in thy 
youth, and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, 
and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of 
thine eyes ; but know thou that for all these things God will 



162 DID CHRIST OR THE APOSTLES 

bring thee into judgment.'' Eccl. xi. 9. " For God shall 
bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, 
whether it be good or whether it be evil." Eccl. xii. 14. 
" Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, 
nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous." Ps. i. 5. 

Future Punishment " The wicked man travaileth in pain 
all his days, and the number of years is hidden to the 
oppressor." Job xv. 20. See also several other places in 
the book of Job. "And many of them that sleep in the 
dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and 
some to shame and everlasting contempt." " The wicked 
shall be turned into hell." Dan. xii. 2, Ps. ix. 17, Prov. 
xiv. 32, etc. 

Future Happiness. "For I know that my Redeemer 
liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the 
earth." Job xix. 25. " In thy presence is fullness of joy, 
at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore." Ps. 
xvi. 11. "As for me I will behold thy face in righteous- 
ness ; I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness." 
Ps. xvii. 25. " The wicked is driven away in his wicked- 
ness, but the righteous hath hope in his death." Prov. xiv. 
82. "God shall judge the righteous and the wicked." 
Eccl. iii. 17. 

Thus we have glanced at pretty much all the commonly 
recognized doctrines of Christianity, and we find them all 
taught in the Old Testament. More extensive references 
could be made, but two or three are sufficient for our present 
purpose. This point, being of great practical importance, 
will be more largely elaborated in a future chapter. 

Many persons write and speak as though the great and 
vital doctrines of Christianity were never taught until the 
time of the New Testament, and so they speak of Christi- 
anity as a new, and peculiar, and more perfect kind of 
religion than any previously known or taught ; but it is an 



TEACH ANY NEW DOCTRINES? 163 

error. These doctrines were more elaborated in the New 
Testament, as we shall see ; but no new doctrine was taught. 

Many persons regard the new commandment of our Lord, 
that we should love one another, as a peculiarity of this 
new Christianity of which some men speak. They misread 
^nd misunderstand the Scriptures. On this point Dr. 
Belcher, in his History of Religious Denominations, Pref. 
p. 18, makes the following very sensible remark : 

" The great law, which has often been considered as pecu- 
liar to Christianity — to do good to our enemies — is an Old 
Testament injunction, quoted by the blessed Kedeemer, and 
repeated by his apostles. It is evident, therefore, that 
certain severities peculiar to that dispensation, both in point 
of enactment and matter of fact, originated in circum- 
stances of an especial nature, and were under the guidance 
of infinite wisdom — the reasons for which not being assigned, 
it were presumptuous in us to conjecture them.^' 

This valuable suggestion might be kept in mind very 
profitably when we read many parts of the Old Testament. 
We see many things there very different from any thing we 
have seen in our times, and we too hastily refer them to a 
different dispensation, which solves all difficulties. By this 
we mean a different system of Divine providence and over- 
sight, as if a change in the system of Divine government 
would be consistent with the Divine character. 

In those distant ages there were circumstances and con- 
ditions of things, both general and particular, very widely 
different from any thing within the little sphere of our 
knowledge and experience, and which furnished " reasons " 
for all those things of which we read. Those reasons are 
unexplained, and if explained, the explanations might or 
might not be satisfactory to us. It ought to be enough, 
however, for us to know that they were satisfactory to the 
Divine oversight. 



164 DID CHRIST TEACH ANY KEW DOCTRINES ? 

And it might be properly added here, also, that not only- 
do we not find any new doctrine of religion in the New 
Testament — any doctrine not previously taught in the Old — 
but we find also that Christ and the apostles did not omit 
to teach any doctrine found in the Old Testament. They 
taught fully every religious tenet found there, and nothing 
else ; or in other words, they taught fully all the doctrines 
of Judaism, and nothing else. 

And where is the minister of any considerable experience 
in preaching, who has not proved every doctrine, and every 
shade and phase of every doctrine of his religion, many 
and many a time from the Old Testament, as he has taught 
and elaborated these doctrines in the pulpit ? 

We ought to be consistent ; and if we truly believe the 
Old Testament to contain but a partial or defective religion, 
falling somewhat short of the gospel, we ought so to preach 
to the people. We ought not to preach that Judaism is 
something difierent from the gospel, and then preach a full 
Christianity in all its shades and shapes from the Old Tes- 
tament. Both things cannot be true. 



ECCLESIASTICAL RULES. 165 



CHAPTEE XXIII, 

BID CHRIST INTRODUCE OR TEACH ANY NEW ECCLESI- 
ASTICAL RULES? OR WERE THERE ANY, AND WHAT 
CHANGES IN PUBLIC WORSHIP OR CHURCH USAGES IN 
THOSE DAYS? 

We come now to inquire whether Christ and his apostles 
introduced any new ecclesiastical rules. Did they remodel 
the Church ? or, as many imagine, did they set up a new 
Church? 

On this subject many seem to have overlooked the 
important truth that, in the days of Christ and the apos- 
tles, there was no disagreement between any parties about 
the Church. There is not in the New Testament the least 
intimation of any disagreement between any persons about 
the Church. The differences between Christ and his follow- 
ei's on the one hand, and other Jews on the other, related 
wholly to other matters. Church rules, or customs, or gov- 
ernment, did not in any way enter into these controversies. 
These questions related exclusively to the vitally important 
religious fact whether Jesus was or was not the Christ 
of their common religion. There is not even a suggestion 
in the New Testament that the Church was faulty, or 
needed any change, either in its outward forms or in 
its religious tenets. The sole difficulty was this : A party 
arose in the Church denying the truth of the religion of 



166 DID CHRIST TEACH ANY 

the Church in this, that they denied that Jesus was in truth 
the Christ. 

The notion that a new Church was then set up by Christ, 
or by his apostles, is not only gratuitous and without . any 
historic facts to support it, but is clearly contradicted by 
all the history and all the analogies in the case. 

Christ was born in the Church of his fathers, and lived 
and died in it. He preached as other Jews preached, and 
conformed to the customs of the temple and synagogue. 
Where there was no synagogue, he submitted to the incon- 
venience and preached in other places. We have no infor- 
mation of his making any considerable changes in any 
thing. In the temple and synagogue services he conformed 
to the regular customs of the Church. 

Whether it was customary in rural districts, where there 
were no synagogues, for Jewish preachers to preach out- 
of-doors or in houses, I know of no history that informs 
us ; but I do not see that the Saviour was complained of 
for doing so, or that the people were complained of for 
hearing him on such occasions, or that it was regarded a 
new thing. 

The Saviour was complained of in the Church, and by 
the proper officers of the Church, for violating the funda- 
mental law of its religion ; and he was tried, convicted, 
and punished ; and whatever else may have been said 
against this proceeding, I have not heard it said that the 
charge was not in itself a legitimate one, or that the 
Church had not a right to try him. We hear no intima- 
tion that the Church had not jurisdiction both of him 
and of the offense ; that is, regarding him as a mere mem- 
ber of the Church. 

Any other person, to have done exactly what he did, would 
have been rightfully punished by the Church therefor. 

The complaint of heresy against Christ was a blunder. 



NEW ECCLESIASTICAL RULES? 167 

It was not that he preached Christology, or, if any one pre- 
fers it, Christianity, All the Jews preached Christ ; that is, 
the doctrine of a scriptural Christ, and of salvation through 
him. That is to say, that was certainly their religion ; and 
each man preached it as well and as fully as he understood 
it. John the Baptist went much farther than this, though 
in strict pursuance of their public faith, and preached, as 
hundreds of thousands publicly professed, that the Christ 
had now come. This was certainly a possible thing. 

It was not for all this that complaints were made against 
Christ. Ko; nor was it for his unbending exhortations to a 
more strict and scriptural morality. Though the proud 
Pharisees, and other men of loose morals, did not like his 
bold expositions and denunciations of their departures from 
the religion of the Scriptures, these things formed no part 
of the legal complaints against him. Indeed, I go farther, 
and say, that it was not for any particular thing, nor for all 
the things found in his public preaching, that furnished the 
ground of charge against him, for which he was crucified. 

This was the charge against him : that he held, though he 
did not publicly preach it, that he himself was the Christ. 
And hence I said that the same things which he did would 
have laid another liable to proper punishment for blasphemy. 

So far as we know, his preaching, both as to matter and 
manner, was pretty much the same as that of John the 
Baptist; though he no doubt 'w^ent much farther in cor- 
recting the moral and religious errors of the times ; that is, 
he held the Church to the proper religion and morals of 
the Church. He made no innovation — ^he introduced noth- 
ing new. I know of no new thing needed to be introduced ; 
nor do I learn from the history that he introduced any 
religious, moral, or ecclesiastical rule not fully warranted 
by the written and acknowledged religion of the Church. 

He was a regular member of the Church generally, and 



168 DID CHRIST TEACH ANY 

of his particular Church, just as other men were then, and 
just as we are now. If Christ did introduce any new 
religion, morals, or Church rules, it is for those who hold 
that he did to specify and show it. This, I confess, I have 
never seen attempted. 

It seems by many to be supposed that the passages of 
Scripture in 1 Cor. xii. 28, Eph. iv. 11, and a few other 
places, respecting different offices, duties, and operations in 
the Church, indicate the formation of a new Church. In 
regard to these passages, about which, however, there is 
much difference of opinion among commentators, there is 
but a single remark that need be made here. Whatever 
else may be said of them, let them be carefully examined, 
and it can but be seen that they do not intimate the inau- 
guration of a new ecclesiastical system. They say several 
things about the Church, the duties of several officers in it, 
etc., but they nowhere intimate the making of a new Church, 
or that one has been made. 

And the same thing must be said of the apostles. They, 
too, were Jews — were born, lived, preached, and died in the 
Church. They never changed their ecclesiastical relations. 
There is not only no intimation of the sort in the history, 
but I hope hereafter to show that it would have been not 
only useless and unmeaning, but, I will add, absurd to 
do so. 

But by this I do not mean to say that in the period under 
notice no changes took place in public worship and Church 
customs. Considerable changes of this sort have always 
been witnessed in all ages of the Church ; and also in any 
period of the Church, now or formerly, considerable variety 
in these things is seen in different portions of the country. 
These changes originate in necessity, in taste, in error, in 
reform, in a variety of incidental circumstances. Separate 
congregational worship was not probably known until the 



NEW ECCLESIASTICAL KULES? 169 

time of the Babylonian captivity. It originated m neces- 
sity or convenience, which is easily seen. But it was not 
always the same. In the time of Christ there was consider- 
able variety in the different portions of the Jewish Church, 
the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and the Hellenist ; and also in 
city and rural districts. 

Look also at the Church in this respect since the time of 
the apostles. In different periods and different countries 
there has been great variety in outward manners. Look at 
the variety now among different classes of Christians. It 
is not true, as many suppose, that the ancient worship was 
always exactly so, fixed and changeless. The people were 
as natural then as now. 

What I assert is, that no considerable or marked changes 
in Church discipline, government, or forms of worship, or 
outward Church rules, were made at mis time. The only 
change in religion or worship that did occur was a simple 
knowledge and proper recognition of the fact of Christ's 
coming, and, of course, a conformity in worship to the fact. 

Those who tell us that in the fovTnation of the Christian 
Church they followed the model of the synagogue, do not 
clearly consider what they ^vrite. Followed the model, in- 
deed ! They followed the model just as we, to-day, follow 
the model of yesterday. What was a synagogue but a 
church? What was a church but a synagogue? They 
both meant the same thing. And, as the believing and 
rejecting Jews came to separate from each other, and wor- 
ship in separate synagogues, it became as natural as needful 
to speak of them in distinction from each other ; and mere 
accidental custom continued the one name to one class, 
while the other was called Assembly, or Church. 

At the first, when the separation began, and for many 
years afterward, the two things were exactly alike, with 
ihh single exception, that the one party, holding to the 



170 ECCLESIASTICAL RULES. 

Scriptures, received Christ; and the other, apostatizing 
therefrom, rejected him, and looked forward to some imag- 
inary Christ in the future. And from that day to this 
there has been no marked or material difference, save in 
such incidental things, varying in times and places, as the 
two tenets suggested. 

Nevertheless, the very circumstance that, prior to this 
time, public and private worship looked forward to a coming 
Christ, and that subsequently all worship looked hack to a 
Christ who had already come, and suffered, must certainly 
necessitate some changes in Church actions as well as in 
those of other religious manners. Such changes as these 
took place, not indeed by any positive law, but as matter 
of course, in order that worship might continue to be rational 
and the same. ^ 

The idea that those Jews who received Christ formed a 
new Church, is a very natural deduction from the glaring 
error of fact previously noticed — that the rejecting Jews 
maintained intact their former religious and ecclesiastical 
position. It is certain that one party maintained its old 
ground, and the other turned aside ; and the way, and the 
only way, to determine which party stood firm and which 
turned aside, is to inquire whether Jesus was or was not 
the Christ of the Old Testament. He was or he was not. 
If he was, then the receiving Jews — those w^ho so held — 
remained firm and continued the Church ; and the rejecting 
Jews turned away and made a new Church. It was the 
one way or the other. The Old Testament religion recog- 
nized Christ as its body, substance, life, and vitality — that 
Christ was either Jesus or some other personage. The 
receiving Jews, called Christians, held that Jesus was that 
Christ. Then, if he was, the case is settled, and his follow- 
ers continue the old Church, and those who leave it leave it. 



WAS A KEW CHURCH POSSIBLE? 171 



CHAPTER XXIV. 

WAS THE FORMATION OP A NEW, OE ANOTHEE CHURCH AT 
THE TIME OF CHRIST, OR AT ANY OVHER TIME, A POSSIBLE 
THING ? 

I NOW go a step beyond the position of the last chapter, 
and affirm that the organization of a new Church was 
impossible. When I say impossible, I do not mean merely 
impracticable. The formation of a new Church never hap- 
pened-never could happen. A society of human persons 
orgamzed with any particular positive laws, and a legal 
framework, would not for that reason be a Church. The 
Church comes about in a very different way. The Church 
IS the natural result of individual religion in several persons 
who have the opportunity of personal association. Eeligion 
makes the Church of unavoidable necessitv. Positive laws 
could no more do it than they could make "a religion. The 
Church IS the religious assoeiation of religious persons. The 
Church IS not first made, and then religious persons 
brought mtd it. The thing works the other way. Eeligion 
IS inculcated absolutely and independently by the power 
of Its own innate truth ; and the association it excites and 
insures of several religious persons, as such, is what we 
mean when we say Church. 

Now how do we know, it might be inquired, that the 
religious association of religious persons, that we caU 



■^^2 WAS THE FORMATION OF 

Church, AviU certainly take place ^vitbout positive law 

to enforce it ? , x ^?- 

We know it with certainty, from the very nature ot 
religion. It could not be otherwise. Eeligion has in it 
inherently a law of social gravitation, which brings men^ 
together for religious ends and purposes, which aw i^ as 
certain in its application as the law of physical gr.wita- 
tion. Eeligion brings its votaries together for mutual en- 
joyment and advantage, where no positive obstnetion 
intervenes, with unmistakable certainty. The absence of 
such association is the best evidence the nature of the 
case admits of, of the absence of religion. _ 

And when they come together thus religiously for wor- 
ship for mutual religious enjoyment, it is impossible to< 
conduct the worship without regularity, order, f^-^^^ 
so you have a Church; and the aggregation of all tliese 
churches is what we call, in a more extended sens«, the 

^^And'then it may be inquired, Have we no divine rules 
on the subject? Did not Christ prescribe rules fc* the 

^\Tt 'certainly true that Christ and all the inspired 

liters taught much on this subject, but it is not true that 

any of them taught or prescribed any positive la^.s for 

the Church. They taught the principles upon which the 

government must proceed, but the particular rules by 

tvhich these principles were to be carried out, were left 

Ipen, subject to a thousand variations to be met m the 

<.reat variety of human condition and circumstances. They 

Jrescribed tL principles of family govermnent which may 

never be departed from ; but they did not enact and fix the 

dining-hourlthe hour for rising, and many other needfu 

rules in family government. And so the principles of civil 

government are'likewise carefully laid down, but the posi- 



A NEW CHUKCH POSSIBLE? 173 

tive laws by which civil power and jurisdiction are exer- 
cised are left open. It would not be expedient for the 
positiyeTaws of the family, the State, or the Church to be 
uniformly the same. 

At the time of Christ there were religious men instructed 
in the Bible, and so, of necessity, there was a Church. 
Then what is meant by having another Church f The very 
idea implies the necessity of another religion. For extend- 
ing the association, however great, for the increase of the 
same religion, would be extending the same Church, not 
making another. In a city, in the country, in this or that 
region, or under these or those circumstances, certain rules 
might be very wholesome, or even necessary, which would 
be worthless or even injurious in another place. But this 
is no more -another Church than municipal laws of local 
application m-ake another government. 

The unbelieving or rejecting Jews seceded .from the Church, 
and formed another. It was another, although the outward 
form may have continued the same. It was another, be- 
cause the religion of the old Church was renounced and 
faith in a false Christ set up in its stead. A Mohammedan 
or Mormon congregation might assemble in the same way, 
and go through the same outward forms of worship, as a 
Christian congregation, but it could not be called a Church 
for that or any -other reason. 

A new Churchy therefore, implies a new religion. And 
will any man say that, at the time of Christ, the pious Jews 
who followed the Old Testament teachings were required 
to renounce their religion in order to follow Christ ? 

Some important changes took place, both in the modes 
of worship, and in many things pertaining to religion, in 
the time of Luther ; and, excepting the mere chronological 
or historic fact of the Advent, they were greater and more 
strongly marked than those in the time of Christ, but no 



174 WAS THE FORMATION OF 

one would call it a new Church. It was merely a reform 
in religious and outward manners. 

Religion once agoing in the world, a new Church is im- 
possible. There can be no such thing. 

And yet the Library of Ecclesiastical Knowledge, Vol. IT., 
p. 8, tells us that "the Christian Church is unlike the Jew- 
ish Church.'' And this disparity we are told is in this, that 
the latter " embraced the whole nation, without reference to 
the vitality of the faith possessed by the individuals of 
which it was composed." 

To this I reply that that is an open falsification of the 
truth of the written religion of the Old Testament. I 
appeal to the Old Testament, and to every man that ever 
read it, that it absolutely and unconditionally requires " the 
vitality of faith in the individual members." 

Again, the disparity is that " the Christian Church com- 
prises only those who form part of the spiritual seed of 
Abraham." 

And just so of the Church "in the wilderness," and in 
all time, before and since the time of Christ. 

Again, of the Christian Church : " It predicates nothing 
of men as men ; it knows of no rule but that of truth, 
of principle, of conscience." 

And will any man say that the Church at any former 
period proceeded upon any other principle ? Let any man 
read the Old Testament and see. 

And the farther catalogue of distinctions between the two 
Churches are of a similar character. They are every one 
made up of either mere phraseological fancy or plain per- 
versions of historic truth. I speak plainly, because the 
occasion demands it. 

Dr. Hales — Analysis of Chronology, Vol. I., p. 114 — in 
speaking of the distinction between the Jewish and Chris- 
tian Churches, says: "There are but two rites — ^the one 



A NEW CHUKCH POSSIBLE? -175 

initiatory, and the other commemorative — introduced into 
the Church of Christ." 

It may be difficult to understand what an intelligent 
man can mean by such an expression. Surely he cannot 
mean what he says, for everybody knows that there is not, 
and never was, a day since the time of Moses, that the 
Church had not, and did not habitually observe more than 
a hundred rites — religious ceremonies. He certainly does 
not mean "rites" — he must mean sacraments. And then 
he is mistaken in supposing that these sacraments were 
introduced into the Church at that time. It has already 
been shown in Chapter XX. that these sacraments were not 
then introduced, because the same tvfo sacraments belong 
necessarily to the Church at all times, and that at this 
time nothing was introduced into the Church but the modes 
of administering the sacraments. But most assuredly the 
rites of religion — scores of them which the apostles found 
in the Church — continued in it without an objection from 
any one; and many of them, with very little alteration, 
are observed in it now almost everywhere. 

The Comprehensive Commentary — Acts ii. 42-47 — tells 
us that " in these verses we have the history of the truly 
primitive Church, of the first days of it, its state of infancy 
indeed, but like that, the state of its greatest innocenceJ^ 

I need hardly remind the reader that in quoting from 
another, I always italicize where he does, because I en- 
deavor to quote truly. Well, if the above statement be 
true, then we must give it up, and say there was no Church 
—no true Church — -before this period. But I insist there is 
this difficulty in the way : no man can show any neiv thing in 
this so-called new Church, I challenge the production of a 
new religious tenet, doctrine, or rule of ethics. And in 
regard to .the mere ceremonies of religion, I challenge the 
production of any changes of a vital, essential, or sacra- 



176 WAS A NEW CHURCH POSSIBLE? 

mental character, save such things as the mere coming of 
Christ rendered naturally necessary. Then what is meant 
by "truly primitive"— "first days"? 

There is evidently nothing ve&Wj priviitive nor new about 
it. The thing is impossible. A new Church without a new 
religion is a contradiction and an impossibility. 

Moreover, with all reverence it may be said that there 
could be nothing in the New Testament against, or deroga- 
tory, or contrary, to any thing in the Old. The supposition 
denies perfection to the Almighty. A new Church is im- 
possible. It is absolutely and logically impossible upon 
supposition that the New Testament is divinely inspired. 



THE PERSONAL IDENTITY OF CHRIST. 177 



CHAPTER XXV. 

THE QUESTION OF THE PERSONAL IDENTITY OF CHRIST 
APPLIED TO THE CHURCH BEFORE, AND DURING, AND 
AFTER HIS LIFE. 

I THINK it has been shown that neither Christ nor the 
apostles introduced any new religious doctrines in their day ; 
and also, that they did not fail to teach fully all the doctrines 
contained in the then existing Scriptures ; and farther, that 
the Church did not suffer annihilation, cessation, interreg- 
num, nor change, beyond such improvements and modifica- 
tions as incidentally met and conformed to the advent of 
Christ. But still there is one thing that must mark a 
material difference in the mode of recognizing the Saviour 
before and after Christ. This should now be carefully 
noted. 

There is one feature in the New Testament which could 
not, in the nature of things, be found in the Old. The doc- 
trine of Christ, including all his characteristics, is confess- 
edly taught in the Old Testament. But his personal identity 
could not be known, nor questioned, nor believed in, until 
after his personal coming. He must needs appear at some 
particular period, and, exclusively, to some of the people 
then living. And then, and not before nor after, the 
question of his proper identity must arise, and must be 
decided. 

It does not by any means follow, that because all the 



178 THE PERSONAL IDENTITY OF CHRIST 

Jewish people believed in a coming Christ, and that they 
were baptized by John into the belief that that was the 
very time of his coming, that they should therefore all agree 
as to his personal identity. They were as liable to err on 
this point as on any other. It was certainly possible that a 
false claim to the Messiahship might have been made ; and 
it was perhaps more to be looked for then than at any other 
time ; and because some one claimed to be the Christ, it did 
by no means follow that he was truly so. 

This distinct question, then, must needs arise — whether 
the man Jesus was the Christ. The question was vital to 
religion. To receive a false Christ, was idolatry ; and to 
refuse the true Christ, was apostasy. It is very true that 
all might have decided this question correctly if they had 
proceeded right about it. He himself said to them : "Search 
the Scriptures — they testify of me." A fair comparison of 
the hook with the man would have settled the question of 
identity. Still it is true that, through pride, prejudice, and 
carelessness, many believed he was not the right man. 

During his life there must have been some doubts with 
regard to him. His death and resurrection were the great 
and final tests, so far as outward proofs were tests. 

Now, just at this period, when the resurrection became an 
historic fact, the Old Testament descriptions of Christ be- 
came inherent in the identical man. Before this it was not 
apostasy to deny him ; but now it is. Now the Scriptures 
touch him personally, and stick their very words into his 
identical personality. 

The connection, then, between Old Testament Christianity 
and New Testament Christianity is the connection of touch, 
of oneness, of adhesion, of identity. In all religious points 
of view they are not two things, but one thing. What we 
call Judaism — the Church, or state of the Church, before 
Christ — and what we call Christianity — the state of the 



APPLIED TO THE CHURCH. 179 

Church since — are now seen to be but two names for the 
same thing ; that is, in religion one thing, and only chrono- 
logically two things. They inhere in each other. They 
embrace each other. They inhere, just as two parts of any 
thing inhere — -just as two portions of the Church at any 
other period inhere. The two parts are separated only by 
an event in the Church. A man is the same person after 
his majority, or any other point, as before. 

The Old Testament religion, doctrine, faith, run right on 
into Christ, and right through his personal manhood into 
the faith which afterward attaches, retrospectively, to his 
atoning acts. The separation is a mere verbal separation — 
a separation which is made in writing and printing, because 
we cannot write tvro sets of words on the same paper. But 
in all religious respects they are one thing, and not two 
things. 

Now it so happened, that about eighteen hundred years 
ago, a large number of professors of religion, members of 
the Church, repudiated the Saviour, denied Christ, quit 
their religion, turned against the Bible, apostatized from 
the faith. And they not only denied the Christ they 
formerly believed in, but they took up a new and false 
Christ — one yet unborn, one who has made no atonement — 
an idolatrous Christ, not known to the Scriptures. 

Christ, therefore, naturally sustained this threefold rela- 
tion to the Church, as he is necessarily looked upon by 
men : his visible personality was first prospective, then for a 
brief space it was present, and ever after it is retrospective. 

But this is not a religious relation: it is chronological. 
He was all the while the same Christ- — the same Mediator — 
the same Saviour. The same faith in the same- Christ was 
always necessary. It is only from the human point of ob- 
servation that he seems to present this threefold relation to 
the Church. 



180 DISTINCTION BETWEEN 



CHAPTER XXVI. 

WHO WERE PROSELYTES, AND WHAT WAS THE DISTINCTION 
BETWEEN THEM AND JEWS? 

It is well known that the term Jew was not originally 
applied to the descendants of Jacob. More than seven 
hundred years after the death of that patriarch it was first 
used to distinguish those who adhered to Rehoboam, on 
their separation from the ten tribes, who were led off under 
Jeroboam. Being chiefly composed of the large tribe of 
Judah, they were generally called by the name of this tribe, 
Jeio being derived from Judah. The Israelites, as the other 
party w^ere called, being, in the course of many years, par- 
tially lost sight of in history, and the Judahites increasing 
in historic importance, at least, the name Jew, in the course 
of time, came to be used generally to denote those com- 
posing the whole Church, and professing that religion. 

And it is the error of many to suppose that in Scripture 
the name Jew was intended to apply exclusively to the 
entire lineal descendants of Jacob. It had reference more 
to the Church, to the religion, than to birth. 

The people commonly called Jews, at and before Christ, 
were the descendants of Jacob in the sense that they had a 
common origin in the family of that patriarch, fifteen 
hundred years ago, and they still claimed this common, 
ancient origin. But the vast influx and outflow in this 
long period, will show any one at once, that by this time the 



PROSELYTES AND JEWS. 181 

ancient patriarchal blood had become so diluted that it 
existed more in name and fancy than in fact ; though some 
lines on the male side are distinctly traceable and infallibly 
traced to the time of Christ. 

This, however, as any one may see in a moment, proves 
nothing, or at most, very little, with regard to the descend- 
ing hereditary current of the entire nation or people. Many 
genealogical lines are traceable in any nation, though there 
may be thousands of outflowing and inflowing currents 
everywhere all the while. 

It was the policy of the Israelites, from the first, to aug- 
ment their numbers from without^ as far as practicable ; and 
that they did receive large accessions in this way, is beyond 
question. The laws prescribed through Moses had particu- 
lar cognizance of this matter. 

"And when the stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will 
keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circum- 
cised, and then let him come near and keep it ; and he shall 
be as one born in the land ; for no uncircumcised person 
shall eat thereof" Ex. xii. 48. 

" But the stranger that dwelleth with you, shall be unto 
you as one born among you, amd thou shalt love him as 
thyself" Lev. xx. 34. 

•" One ordinance shall be both for you of the congrega- 
tion, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you; an 
ordinance for ever in your generations. As ye are, so shall 
the stranger be before the Lord. One law and one manner 
shall be for you and for the stranger that sojourneth with 
you." Num. xxv. 14, 15. 

There are also many other places in the Old Testament 
where this subject is treated of The term "stranger" is 
understood to mean the same as was afterward understood 
by proselyte, or those outside the lineal Israel. 

In Esther viii. 17, we learn, by mere casual remark, that 



182 DISTINCTION BETWEEN 

" many of the people of the land became Jews." Isaiah 
speaks of " the stranger that hath joined himself to the 
Lord." They had thoroughly renounced idolatry and em- 
braced the true religion. Ezra vi. 21, Kuth i. 16, ii. 11, 
Ps. xlv. 10, etc. They became Jews to all intents and 
purposes ; that is, they became members of their religion 
and Church. 

I readily grant that, at least in some periods, there was 
some distinction, in some minor respects, made in the worship 
of these proselytes and others. But this could extend only 
to those individual persons who were proselyted. But in a 
single generation these persons were dead, and their pos- 
terity intermixed indiscriminately with other Jews, and 
were soon lost sight of in the common mass. The Jews — 
especially after they took that name — were always a people 
of mixed blood. 

Indeed, from the first, the Israelites were but half-breed 
descendants from Jacob, because the twelve sons of that great 
patriarch did not marry their sisters. The sons married 
outside the family ; and the daughters, if there were any, 
and married, must have done the same thing. And we can 
hardly suppose that the sons and daughters of the twelve 
patriarchs intermarried. But after two or three generations 
there was no natural objection to a general intermarrying. 
So that, from the time of the first three generations, it is 
not likely that more than one-fourth or one-eighth of the 
Israelitish blood descended from the loins of Jacob. 

And then there was always a very large influx from 
without, in various ways. On this point, among the many 
historic notices that might be easily quoted, I cite the fol- 
lowing, in Conybeare and Howson^s St Paul, Vol. I., p. 19, 
which they support by abundant historic reference : 

"Many proselytes were attached to the Jewish communi- 
ties wherever they were dispersed. Even in their own 



PROSELYTES AND JEWS. 183 

country and its vicinity, the number, both in early and later 
times, was not inconsiderable. The Queen of Sheba, in the 
Old Testament ; Candace, Queen of Ethiopia, in the New ; 
and King Izates, with his mother Helena, mentioned by 
Josephus, are only royal representatives of a large class. 
During the time of the Maccabees, some alien tribes were 
forcibly incorporated with the Jews. This was the case with 
the Iturseans, and probably with the Moabites, and, above 
all, with the Edomites, with whose name that of the Hero- 
dian family is historically connected. How far Judaism 
extended among the vague collection of tribes called Arabi- 
ans, we can only conjecture from the curious history of the 
Homerites, and from the actions of such chieftains as 
Aretas, (2 Cor. xi. 32). But as we travel toward the 
west and north, into countries better known, we find no 
lack of evidence of the moral effect of the synagogues, with 
their worship of Jehovah and their prophecies of the 
Messiah. Nicolas of Antioch is only one of that 'vast 
multitude of Greeks' who were attracted in that city to 
the Jewish doctrine and ritual. In Damascus, we are even 
told by the same authority, the great majority of the women 
were proselytes." 

It is therefore the mistake of many to suppose that the 
descendants of Jacob have always lived in the world a " dis- 
tinct people." They were distinct chiefly because their 
religion distinguished them from other people. It was 
much the case with the Church, in this regard, in former 
times, as it is now. 

And even the laws of exclusiveness, such as they had, 
were by no means always obeyed. It was the law that they 
should not marry out of the Church, and yet this was 
extensively done on many occasions. It was largely done 
soon after the return from Babylon. See Ezra x., Neh. xiii. 
23, Mai. ii. 11. 



184 DISTINCTION BETWEEN 

It seems to be supposed or assumed by some, that this 
influx from without was comparatively very small ; so much 
so, as to be scarcely noticeable. This is a mistake. The 
history to the contrary is abundant. Outside people were 
proselyted, or converted, unlimitedly. That was the law of 
the Church, and that is the history of the times, both sacred 
and profane. The law and the practice conform to each 
other ; and they were both very much the same as now. 
We bring everybody into the Church we can, and so did 
they. The principal difference is, that formerly they 
preached only in the Church, and to such as came to hear ; 
but the doors were open, and all were freely invited to come 
in. We now go farther than this, and go out after them. 
And in old times too, they sometimes — very improperly, 
indeed — forced large communities to come in among them ; 
and then the posterity of such, in a generation or two, 
became intermixed and indistinguishable in the common 
mass. 

It is an error, therefore, to suppose that the Jews were 
exclusively the descendants of Jacob ; nor did the lineal 
descendants of Jacob by any means all remain Jews. They 
sloughed off, and leaked out in many ways. On the return 
from the Babylonian captivity there were but about forty- 
three thousand remaining in the Church. 

When the Jews divided upon the question of Christ into 
two great parties, the believing or Christian party were 
properly considered to be Jews. Howsoever the two parties 
respectively came to be called, popularly, after a time, 
the Christian party, that adhered to Christ, undoubtedly 
were the real and true Jews in preference to the others. 
And so you hear the word of the Lord, related by John, 
say: "And I know the blasphemy of them which say they 
are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." 
Rev. ii. 9. 



PROSELYTES AND JEWS. 185 

The apostatizing Jews who blaspheme the name of Christ, 
and are therefore not Jeius, though they falsely call them- 
selves such, having sold themselves to Satan, are of his syn- 
agogue. Nothing could be more natural than this declara- 
tion ; and the same is repeated in Rev. iii. 9 : " Behold, I 
will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say 
they are Jews, and are not, but do lie," etc. 

St. Paul enlarges upon this idea more fully in the second 
of Eomans, and shows that the true worshipers, and they 
alone, are properly Jews. He contends that, having left the 
Jewish Church by denying Christ, they were not Jews, 
though they were so called. He is -not a Jew which is one 
outwardly — by mere birth and profession; but he is a 
Jew who is one inwardly — who follows Christ. 

Nothing could more completely identify Judaism and 
Christianity than this argument of the apostle. He is not 
a Jew who has nothing but the outward claim — the mere 
birth and verbiage. To be a Jew he must have the Jewish 
religion — ^that which he professed and recommended. This 
argument is again referred to in Rom. ix., and in other 
places. 

But at the same time that those who had abandoned the 
true Jewish religion by rejecting Christ, had forfeited all 
right to the name of Jew, it was also true that they called 
themselves Jews, though Paul says they were not, and John 
says they were not, but lied when they did so. 

But still, in popular parlance, after a time, they came 
generally, and as the true Jews came to be popularly 
known by another name, they finally were uniformly called 
Jews. And so the apostatizing or false Jews were called 
Jews, and the true Jews were called Christians. AH this was 
merely incidental, and was neither an advantage to the one 
nor a disadvantage to the other. The name, in the public 
mind, soon conformed in meaning to the thing. The only 



186 DISTINCTION BETWEEN 

use we have for names is to distinguish things and persons. 
The word Jew^ as it is now popularly, and therefore prop- 
erly used, is to this day strictly a misnomer or falsehood ; 
or, in the verbiage of St. John, a lie. That is, it originated 
in falsehood ; but the meaning being understood, it has long 
since ceased to convey any wrong idea, and answers all the 
simple purposes of a name. 

But there is still another and very significant reason why 
the false Jews took and retained the old name. In those 
times a very monarchical idea attached to all governments. 
The rulers or the king were the government, and wore the 
name ; and in this instance it so happened that nearly all 
the highest rulers and officials went with the apostates ; and 
so if they had been the most insignificant few in numbers, 
they would have been likely to wear the old national name. 

And hence the meaning to be attached to the expression 
" the Jews," so frequently met with in the New Testament. 
The meaning evidently is, the apostate, unbelieving, or false 
Jews. There were now two separate and distinct sorts of 
Jews — those who, maintaining their ancient faith, received 
Christ, and those who refused him. " The Jews " are fre- 
quently spoken of in contradistinction to the friends of 
Christ, when we know very well they were all Jews ; that 
is, they were formerly one people : they were still called Jews 
for the reasons above, though they were not really Jews. 
This we know from the reason of the thing, and also from 
the explicit statements of Paul, John, and others. 

About twenty-five years after the death of Christ, when 
the final separation between the two classes of Jews may be 
said to have well begun and to have made much progress, 
we hear Paul declare that the unbelieving party, though 
commonly called Jews, were not so in reality ; they were 
not truly or religiously Jews ; and more than forty years 
after that we hear John declaring and repeating the same 



PROSELYTES AND JEWS. 187 

thing. But in the circumstances, nothing was more natural 
than that they should pass popularly by that name, and 
that the true and real Jews should take the name of Christ, 
or some such name. 

Christians are not the true Church because they are 
called by the name of Christians, but because they follow 
Christ ; neither are the other party apostates because they 
are called by this or that name, but for the sole reason that 
they did reject Christ 

It is apparent, then, that all along the line of the Church, 
from Abraham to the present, the policy was to bring in all 
who would come in, and incorporate them with the people 
of God. We call the incomers proselytes, or converts. The 
law of the Church in regard to these incomers — how they 
should be treated, and the relation they should bear to 
others, as it was written in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, 
and later — was very much the same it is now. They, on 
their part, must conform to religion, and wear the badge 
of its social communion ; and then they were to be received 
on an equal footing with others, and there was to be " no 
difference '' between these and those. The identical persons 
proselyted might pass through a period of pupilage, or 
catechetical probation, to get them fairly in in good faith, 
but their posterity, supposing they did not personally apos- 
tatize, were soon lost in the common mass. There was to 
be " no difference " in them. 

All the variations in these things, since the days of the 
pt^phets, have been in mere external manners ; and on the 
whole, they have been very little: they have not been 
greater than in a hundred other matters of domestic and 
social habitude and custom of the times. 



188 ABE CHRISTIANS PROSELYTES, 



CHAPTER XXYII. 

ARE CHRISTIANS PROSELYTES, OR CONVERTS, TO JUDAISM, 
THAT IS, TO THE RELIGION WHICH THE JEWISH CHURCH 
PROFESSED BEFORE THE DAYS OF CHRIST? 

Names do not determine the character of things ; neither 
does a change in name alter or affect the character of the 
thing. The only use we have for names is to distinguish 
different things in connection, so that the hearer may readily 
fix his mind on the thing of which the speaker speaks. 
Any name is correct that is uniformly assented to and under- 
stood. 

The following propositions will not probably be denied : 

First Before the time of Christ, and indeed for some time 
afterward, the Old Testament was the Bible of the Church, 
It was the whole of the true Bible of the true Church. It 
contained, word for word, the religion of the Church. 

Secondly. For fifteen hundred years, at least, it had been 
the policy of the Church to disciple, to convert, to proselyte 
outsiders ; that is, to inculcate religious truth in the minds 
of unbelievers, to bring them to a knowledge of saving 
truth, and hence to bring them into religious association 
with religious people. 

Or, to state it differently, the way was left open for those 
without to come in freely upon the prescribed conditions. 
There must be cooperation. How much zeal or anxiety was 



OK CONVERTS, TO JUDAISM ? 189 



manifested on the subject by either party, in these or those 
countries, in these or those ages, are other questions, and 
such as could be correctly answered only in a hundred dif- 
ferent ways. 

I affirm this, as well from the revealed history of the 
Church as from the reason of the thing. The former is un- 
mistakably plain ; and as to the latter, it is impossible for a 
person to be religious and not make some reasonable effort 
to proselyte and convert others to the truth. The very 
nature of true religion, in any age of the world, or in any 
circumstances, requires this absolutely. 

Thirdly. When Christ came, he came in perfect accordance 
with the religion of the Church. I speak of the religion of 
the Church as it was and is, notwithstanding any errors 
which might have prevailed with any who mistook or mis- 
understood their religion in these or those instances. 

Fourthly, Then it follows, necessarily, that those who 
adhered to the religion of the Church received and adhered 
to Christ. Moreover, it results, from the character of God 
and the nature of man, that there can be but one true 
religion. 

Fifthly. These religious men, after Christ, continued to 
stand in the same relation to the Church, to religion, and to 
irreligious persons, as before. And the history abundantly 
testifies that the policy has been to convert, to proselyte, to 
bring in, as many from without as practicable. 

Sixthly. Then the question arises, To what were outsiders 
converted — proselyted ? What religion were they induced 
to embrace ? 

To this question the answer is as apparent as it is neces- 
sary and unavoidable. 

These persons, so brought in to the belief and embrace 
of true religion, in whatever age of the world, might be 
called disciples, converts, or proselytes : the meaning is, I 



190 ARE CHRISTIANS PROSELYTES TO JUDAISM? 

believe, about the same. Then there is no difference grow- 
ing out of the ti7ne when unbelievers were thus brought into 
the Church, and to the embrace of true religion. 

The policy of the Church is the same now it always was. 
It is rational — natural. Outsiders are now brought in, or 
they are permitted to come in, and they adopt the same 
faith they always did. In one age of the world you may 
call them proselytes, and in another converts ; the principle 
is the same, and the words synonymous. And their children, 
if they do not leave the faith and communion of the Church, 
they stay in, as they all should, and as some do. 

The words Jeiv and Gentile ought not to be suffered to 
lead any astray. These words designated the religious rela- 
tion of these and those people. These were called Jews 
because they were in the Church ; and those were called 
Gentiles because they were out Well, did not the Gentiles 
become Jews by coming in ? The Bible says so, and reason 
says so. Before Christ, the Church passed under the common 
name of Jews ; and since, from mere adventitious reasons, 
under a different name. And the word Gentile has gone 
gradually into disuse, except in describing olden and Oriental 
circumstances; but the things and their relations remain 
substantiallv the same. 



DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST ? 191 



CHAPTER XXVIII. 

DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? A VIEW OF THE QUES- 
TION TAKEN DURING THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

The prevalent notion is, that the Jews, in mass, were the 
enemies of Christ — they rejected him as the Messiah, and 
stood in solid phalanx against the religion of the gospel, 
from the first and finally. This is very far from being true, 
though I confess it is, to a considerable extent, warranted by 
very respectable teachings or assumptions on the subject. 

Mr. Watson, Biblical and Theological Dictionary, Arti- 
cle Church, says : " The Jews fell, and the Gentiles came in 
their room." Nevir}£s Biblical Antiquities, at page 51, men- 
tions two Jews who received Christ — Simeon and Anna — and 
says there were others, but inculcates the idea that they 
were the fewest number. Robhins's World Displayed says 
Jesus was almost universally rejected by both Jews and 
Gentiles. 

And, indeed, nearly all the religious books I am 
acquainted with, that treat upon the subject at all, except 
the Bible, teach the same thing in substance. I have been 
taught it from the books, and from the pulpit, a thousand 
times, and for many years I really thought it was so. 

There is no doubt, however, that Christ was rejected by 
Jews, and by Jews he was crucified ; but there is no evidence 
in Scripture that any large number of the Jewish people 



192 DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 

opposed him in any way. If, on the one hand, it is true that 
Jews opposed and crucified Christ, it is also true that Jews 
were his first and firmest friends. They received him, sup- 
ported him, befriended him, and stood by him to the last ; 
and vintil about twelve long years after his crucifixion, the 
Jews were his sole and exclusive followers ; and when his 
disciples must have numbered tens and hundreds of thou- 
sands, there were none but Jews among them — no, not one. 

Let us look at the testimony. The great numbers who 
followed him, and attended so faithfully upon his ministry, 
cannot all be set down as his faithful followers. Many 
turned back occasionally, as is the case now. But still, 
these followers must be regarded as having a strong im- 
pression in favor of his INIessiahship. No doubt most of 
them were those baptized by John, and felt more or less 
strongly committed to him. 

"And there followed him great multitudes of people from 
Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from 
Judea, and from beyond Jordan." Matt. iv. 25. And just 
before, we are told that Jesus went about all Galilee, teach- 
ing in the synagogues, and preaching ; and that his fame 
went throughout all Syria, etc. A glance at the map will 
show that many of these must have gone twenty, fifty, or a 
hundred miles, to hear his preaching. And notice, too, that 
mostly, this is the very country where John had so recently 
preached with such w^onderful results. 

After the Sermon on the Mount, of which w^e have so 
large a synopsis, it is said that " great multitudes '' followed 
him ; and in Matt. viii. 18, on another occasion, it is inci- 
dentally mentioned, that when he saw " great multitudes " 
about him, he gave commandment to depart, etc.; and in 
Matt. viii. 34, it is said the whole city came out to meet him. 
In Matt. ix. 8, " multitudes " are spoken of as being the 
witnesses of one of his miracles : and in Matt. ix. 31, it is 



>' 



DID THE JEWS KEJECT CHRIST ? 193 

said that his fame was spread abroad in all that country. 
In Matt. xii. 15, we read that "great multitudes followed 
him ; " and the same thing in Matt. xii. 34-36. 

In Matt. xiv. ' 5, we have a very significant remark 
respecting Herod the king. It seems he w^as desirous of 
putting John the Baptist to death long before he did. 
*'And when he would have put him to death, he feared the 
multitude, because they counted him as a prophet." John, 
the friend of Christ, w^ho had proclaimed him to thousands, 
and had raised such a general belief in favor of Christ, 
causing the people to attach so much importance to the 
subject, that even the king, in that highly despotic govern- 
ment, dared not destroy him, because he feared the multi- 
tude, because they counted him as a prophet — that is, the 
Prophet, the Messiah. And this fear was so great that, 
though the taking of the lives of accused persons by kings 
was a mere circumstance, yet he had to wait and take 
advantage of a great festive occasion to execute his purpose. 

It is true that Herod said he was " sorry '' that he found 
himself compelled to behead John, and did it reluctantly 
" for the oath's sake," in which he had unwittingly sworn 
to give his daughter whatsoever she would ask. This was 
evidently a piece of chicanery and hypocrisy, on the part 
of Herod, to screen him from the feared vengeance of the 
people. He had put him in- prison, "and when he would 
have put him to death, he feared the multitude." 

This shows the popular estimation in which Christ was 
held ; that whatever might be said of a few officials, or a 
handful of Pharisees, the people were, to a great extent, at 
least, his fast friends. 

And then we constantly read of " great multitudes," " the 
multitude," and " very great multitudes," as being his fol- 
lowers, and the eager hearers' of his teachings. We read in 
one place of a few priests and Pharisees who were offended 



194 DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 

at one of his parables : ''But when they sought to lay hands 
071 him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a 
prophet " — Matt. xxi. 46 — that is, the Divine Prophet, or 
Messiah. And again, this language is attributed to the 
chief priests and elders : " We fear the people, for all hold 
John as a prophet." Thus we find the people and the mul- 
titude on the side of John and Christ. In Luke xii. 1, 
Mark iii. 8, vi. 33, we hear of great masses of people 
thronging to hear the teachings of Jesus. The common 
people, we are told, heard him gladly ; and he taught in 
their synagogues, being glorified of all. In Luke v. 17, we 
read of Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which 
came out of every town of Galilee, and Judea, and Jerusa- 
lem ; and Luke ix. 40, " The people gladly received him." 
In Luke x. 17, we learn that the seventy returned with joy, 
saying, " Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through 
thy name.'' Luke viii. 17 : "And when he had said these 
things, all his adversaries were ashamed ; and all the people 
rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him." 

In John xi. 48, some chief priests and Pharisees conclude 
that, " if we let him thus alone, all men w^ill believe on 
him;" and in John xii. 19, "The Pharisees said among 
themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, 
the world is gone after him !" 

The above are but a portion of the quotations which 
might be made, going to show that Christ was favorably 
received during his ministry by the Jewish people, and that 
he was opposed only by a few officials and Pharisees ; and 
I know of no expression in the gospels which shows that 
either the person, the ministry, or supposed Messiahship of 
Christ, was opposed by any considerable number of Jews. 
The Jews were his friends. About the strongest remark I 
remember, which would seem to indicate a popular opposi- 
tion to Jesus, is John vii. 1 : "After these things Jesus 



DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 195 

walked in Galilee ; for he would not walk in Jewry, because 
the Jews sought to kill him." Jewry means Judea, in the 
midst of which province Jerusalem w^as situate, and where 
the officials were found. He would not avoid the Jewish 
people by going from Judea to Galilee, for he was still 
among them ; though he would avoid the officials. More- 
over, the remark about killing must be referred to the 
officials, and not to the people. By " the Jews " is generally 
meant their officials, their government. 

In this connection the cleansing of the temple deserves 
notice. When our Lord first entered upon his ministry, or 
soon after, he went into the temple at Jerusalem, and with 
ecclesiastical authority, and without opposition, so far as we 
know, with " a scourge of small cords " drove the sellers of 
sheep and oxen and the money-changers out of it, reproving 
them in the severest manner ; and again, about three years 
afterward, when he made his grand entry into the city, not 
many days before his death, he did the same thing, with still 
more force and authority. We might imagine it to be 
almost a pity that we have not something like a detailed 
account of these important transactions. We have but a 
bare statement of the facts. 

It was the great temple, in the great city, and was 
always frequented, if not thronged, by priests, Pharisees, 
and others. It was the grand rendezvous of his enemies, 
the officials of the Jews. Now, how could he have done 
this, with no personal force of a physical nature ? There 
must have been a deep conviction among the great mass of 
the people, and at least a respectable portion of the officials, 
that he was the Messiah, or he could not have wielded such 
moral power. We do not read that he met with any resist- 
ance in either case. And in these instances it was not only 
authority, but it was the highest ecclesiastical authority, he 
assumed. He placed himself as the Guardian, Superior, 



196 DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 

and Custodian of the great temple, overriding the authority 
of the Sanhedrim, priests, and worshipers, in their very- 
face ; thus openly claiming higher power than they all. 

Here is most conclusive evidence that the Jewish Church 
were generally his followers, or at least his friends. Those 
at these times in and about Jerusalem must have been 
favorably disposed toward him. 

And here it might not be amiss to notice a remark of 
Josephus on the subject. In Antiquities, Book XVIII., 
c. 3, he says of Christ : " He drew over to him both many 
of the Jews and many of the Gentiles." It is known that 
Josephus says very little of Jesus or his followers. He 
speaks in terms of high respect of him, though he himself 
had such doubts of his Messiahship, that he never openly 
acknowledged him. 

I conclude, then, that up to the time of his arraignment 
and trial, the Jewish people, in Palestine, at least, with 
some very fevr noted exceptions, Avere the friends and sup- 
porters of Christ, and were, at least, strongly inclined to 
favor his alleged Messiahship. Of course, in so large a 
Church, amounting to several millions, there was all the 
variety of degrees of interest felt in the subject. Many 
looked upon the question as of the deepest and most 
vital importance, while others troubled themselves less 
about it. 

But still, as before explained, up to this time none could 
be regarded as finally, and in the highest sense, his disciples ; 
for the reason that they had not been called upon to meet 
the great test of his Messiahship — viz., his death and resur- 
rection. 

But now^, up to about the time of his arraingment, prob- 
ably a day or two before his crucifixion, I ask for the evi- 
dence of rejection — of opposition to him anywhere by any- 
body, except here and there that of a few proud and disap- 



DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 197 

pointed officials. I appeal to the Scriptures, while I hold 
that the common teaching on this subject is erroneous. 

The Scripture teaching is plain and unmistakable, that 
up to the time of his arraignment, the moral tread of his 
footsteps throughout Palestine shook the nation to its very 
foundation. When he spoke, the thronging multitudes hung 
spell-bound upon his lips ; and when he moved, the great 
and teeming masses moved almost instinctively with him. 
Never did any man so deeply and universally sway and 
carry the people with him as did the Saviour the Jewish 
people during these few years of his public teaching. 



198 DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 



CHAPTER XXIX. 

DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? CONTINUED IN AN EX- 
AMINATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TRIAL AND 
CRUCIFIXION. 

"We have now come down to the time of the arraignment, 
trial, and crucifixion. And here, also, we are not able to 
see that the great body of the Jewish people, or, indeed, 
any very large number of them, opposed the Saviour, 
denied his claims to the Messiahship, or participated in 
these proceedings. There was no doubt a good deal of con- 
fusion and uncertainty of belief. The same persons Avere 
more or less sanguine at different times. Those baptized 
by John were, no doubt, generally pretty firm in their 
belief in Christ. The people generally espoused his cause 
with more or less interest and feeling. " The common people 
heard him gladly. ^^ ^'The world was gone after himf^ and 
the opposition of the ofiicial few ^^ prevailed nothing, ^^ 

The grand and triumphant entry into the city of Jeru- 
salem, a few days before, had established his great popu- 
larity with the people beyond question. It was a spontane- 
ous uprising of the people, in great and overflowing masses, 
wdth constant and loud declarations on every hand of his 
high claims to the great Messiahship of their religion. 
The thronging multitudes met him, perhaps, some miles 
from the city, and his grand entry was of the most popular. 



DID THB JEWS BEJECT CHEIST ? 199 

sublime, and triumplial character. He went immediately 
to the temple, taking formal and unresisted possession 
of it, and proclaiming it as " my Father's house." His 
ecclesiastical authority was apparently unlimited and un- 
questioned. In their way, and according to the custom 
of those times, everybody seemed to strive to do him the 
greatest reverence and the highest honor. 

So thorough and uniform was this uprising and demon- 
stration on the part of the teeming masses in and around 
the city, that the Sanhedrim and their friends durst not 
attempt to interpose their authority to check the popular 
applause. 

And as to the circumstances of the trial and crucifixion, 
we see at the first glance that the whole affair was conducted 
both hastily and secretly, ^'for fear of the peopled 

"Then assembled together the chief priests, and the 
scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of 
the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and consulted 
that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him. But 
they said, Not on the feast-day, lest there be an uproar 
among the people." Matt. xxvi. 3-5. 

Here we have the Sanhedrim, seventy or less in number, 
assembled hastily for this specified purpose. But " not on 
the feast-day,'^ they say. Why not ? It was a long-estab- 
lished custom for such things to be done at the time of one 
of the principal feasts. The answer is, ''Lest there he an 
uproar among the people ;" lest the people rise in insurrec- 
tion and overpower the Sanhedrim, and rescue Jesus. 
Hence they consulted — managed, adroitly — by subtilty. 
Doddridge paraphrases thus : " Their plan was to dispatch 
the matter in haste, and with the least possible amount 
of noise. They entered into a secret conspiracy, and con- 
sulted how they might privately take Jesus by some artifice, 
without giving an alarm to his friends, and might put him 



200 DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 

to death as soon as possible, which, one way or other, they 
were determined to do. But they had such an apprehen- 
sion of his interest in the people, that some of them were 
rather for delaying it, and said it Avill be more advisable to 
wait till after the passover, and not attempt to seize him at 
the feast, while there is such a concourse in the city from 
all parts ; lest the design that we have formed against him 
should be discovered, and, considering how popular he is, 
there should be a tumult raised among the people, either to 
rescue him from our hands, or to revenge his death." 

And this is the only reason I can see Avhy they needed 
the services of Judas. Certainly, it could have been no 
difficult thing to arrest Jesus publicly in the street, as they 
Vv^ould any other man. But this they were afraid to do. 
They desired to take him privately, in some retired, out-of- 
the-way place, to avoid public attention. And hence the 
need of the services of some private, intimate friend, to 
betray him into their hands at night, in a private and 
secret way. 

The arrest and trial were caused by the Sanhedrim and 
a few priests, and by them alone, and in opposition to 
the great body of the Jewish people. 

Schauffen, in his very beautiful Meditations on the Lad 
Days of Christy states the matter very correctly : "Ah ! the 
matter fares miserably for the Jews. The sun rises higher 
and higher; the holy feast draws near; two courts of 
justice (so called) have, on the whole, pronounced the de- 
fendant innocent; and yet he must be dispatched soon; for 
if his numerous friends learn that he is on trial, they may 
inquire into the matter, and then the venerable Sanhedrim 
will appear to no singular advantage. It is plain they 
must prevail on Pilate now to kill him ; and succeed they 
must, or their character and influence are at an end." 

The band of Koman soldiers wxre merely in the dis* 



DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 201 

charge of military duty, and are not presumed to have had 
any personal interest in the matter. 

It seems clear, therefore, that up to the time of the 
crucifixion, there was no considerable number of the Jew- 
ish people opposed to the teachings of John or Christ, or to 
the Messiahship of the latter. A few ofiicials, particularly 
the Sanhedrim, were the opposers of Christ. 

The actual crucifixion produced a wonderful change, or 
rather a wonderful disappointment. "We- trusted that it 
had been he which should have redeemed Israel." This 
must have been the sentiment of the great body of the 
Jews. "T/ie chief priests and our rulers'' — not the people — 
*' delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified 
him'' The crucifixion disappointed their hopes, and filled 
them with sadness and inexplicable dismay. And the re- 
ported resurrection increased the mystery, and raised the 
hopes of many. And then the reappearance, on three several 
occasions, unraveled the mystery, and made nearly every 
thing plain to those to whom the reappearance was made. 
But these persons were probably only a few hundred alto- 
gether ; the rest of the world being then, as now, dependent 
on the evidences of human testimony to raise a presump- 
tion, and the surer workings of the Holy Ghost to demon- 
strate the knowledge that, after all, Jesus was and is the 
Christ. 

I purposely place human testimony in that subordinate 
position— the highest it deserves to be placed in, in my 
judgment, because I do not believe that any human testi- 
mony can demonstrate the truth of Christianity. Applied 
to Christ's resurrection and the inspiration of Scripture, 
miracles and prophecy, if proved, prove the truth of relig- 
ion in a general way; yet human testimony has, in my 
judgment, been made to perform very far beyond its capa- 
bilities. 



202 BID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST ? 

Now, the great question of Christ wore a very dijflferent 
aspect from what it had ever before presented to the He- 
brew mind. It was no longer a prospective question of 
fact, growing out of the Hebrew ecclesiastical polity, but a 
great subjective truth, embodying that whole polity itself. 

The expression in the twenty-fifth verse of the twenty- 
seventh chapter of Matthew, cannot be construed so as to 
set aside the above reasoning. It says: "Then answered 
all the people, and said. His blood be on us and on our 
children." 

In the twentieth verse it is said, " But the chief priests 
and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask 
Barabbas, and destroy Jesus." 

The expression, " the multitude," in the twentieth verse, 
and "all the people" in the twenty -fifth, can refer only 
to such persons as chanced to be then in the court-room — 
at most only a handful, perhaps a hundred or two, whom 
the chief priests had brought there and " persuaded ;" evi- 
dently the friends of the priests. Christ's friends had 
withdrawn in despair, if, indeed, any of them were per- 
mitted to be present at the trial. 

And now, is there any evidence that, in the circumstances 
of the trial and crucifixion, there was any complicity in it, 
among the Jews, beyond the Sanhedrim and a few — ^very 
few — of their adherents — those immediately and personally 
present? It cannot for a moment be presumed that any 
considerable number of the Jewish people knew any thing 
of the crucifixion until after it occurred. Perhaps not 
one-fiftieth part of the Jews were at that time in or near 
the city of Jerusalem ; and from all we learn of the history 
of the case — the very secret and hasty manner in which it 
was conducted — it is not likely that one in fifty of those 
knew of it until after it was all over. Let any man look 
carefully into these circumstances. 



DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 203 

Mr. Kennedy, in his Messianic Prophecy, page 450, makes 
what is perhaps a very proper remark on this point. 
He says : " By this time the Sanhedrim have collected all 
the enemies of Jesus, and all the rabble with whom they 
have influence, about Pilate's house, in order to make their 
demand appear to be the wish of the people." 

This is exceedingly natural and according to the history. 
The Sanhedrim, or a majority thereof, and a handful of 
rabble, with a few priests, were the opponents of Christ, 
and procured his arrest and crucifixion; while the great 
mass of people were his friends. This is the history. 

Josephus says the condemnation and crucifixion of Christ 
by Pilate, was "at the suggestion of the principal men 
among us." Ant., Book XVIII., ch. 3. That accords pre- 
cisely with the evangelical account. The principal men — 
not the people. 

In John xviii. 3, it is expressly stated that Judas acted on 
behalf of "the chief priests and Pharisees" — not the Jewish 
people generally. In John xviii. 12, it is said: "Then the 
band, and the captain, and officers of the Jews took Jesus 
and bound him." The " band and the captain " were Roman 
soldiers — the " officers of the Jews " were such priests and 
officials of the Sanhedrim as were then present and assisted 
in or instigated the arrest. But no mention is made of any 
considerable number of Jewish people being interested in it. 

In John xviii. 40, it is said : " Then cried they all again, 
saying, Not this man but Barabbas." Now what does "a/^' 
refer to ? Evidently all the little crowd then around the 
door of Pilate's house. In John xix. 6, "When the chief 
priests therefore, and officers saw him, they cried out, 
saying. Crucify him." The chief priests and officers — they 
were the men who urged and conducted the afiair through- 
out. In John xix. 15, it is said, "T/ie chief priests answered, 
We have no king but Caesar ;" and nowhere is there any 



204 BID THE JEWS EEJECT CHRIST? 

allusion made to the people as participating in the perse- 
cution in any way, but whenever they are mentioned, the 
allusion is to their opposition to these measures. 

If, therefore, you examine carefully into every place 
where this subject is alluded to, it will be seen that, in 
the first place, no such mention of Jews is made anywhere 
as could apply to several millions of people, or even to any 
considerable number of those then in the city of Jerusalem ; 
but, secondly, the entire drift of all the statements and 
descriptions go to show that those Jews who were urging 
the trial and conviction were members of the Sanhedrim, 
some of the priests, and other officials, and such small 
number of people as were found acting with them. This 
last number could be but few, because, at most, only a very 
few people could be personally present anywhere, and 
acting personally in any such matter; and there is not, 
anywhere, the least hint that those persons were represent- 
ing the will or wishes of the Jews generally, or any con- 
siderable portion of them. Indeed, the inference is clear 
and necessary that they were acting in very high opposition 
to the great mass of the Jewish people. And yet Dr. 
Doddridge strangely tells us, Acts vi. 14, that Jesus was 
crucified " with the concurrence of the whole Jewish people." 



BIB THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST ? 205 



CHAPTER XXX. 

BID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? CONTHSTUED IN AN EXAM- 
INATION OF THE PARTICULAR CONDITION OF THE CHURCH 
AT AND AFTER THE ASCENSION. 

From what is already said, the conclusion is inevitable 
that, up to the time of the death of Christ, the Jewish 
people — ^much the largest portion of them — were at least 
favorably disposed toward Jesus. Indeed, the historic 
accounts do by no means warrant the belief that any very 
considerable number of the Jews opposed him. All the 
opposition to him which we read of, was from the officials 
and a few others. 

But there are several considerations which must be borne 
carefully in mind : 

First What was the question about Jesus upon which the 
Jews differed ? I answer, simply this : Was he the Christ 
of their religion f Prior to this time all the Jews were 
Christians. Nothing can be better settled than this. That 
is, the entire faith and hope of the Church rested on Christ 
— Christ as portrayed by the prophets. And now the 
question arises. Is Jesus this Christ? 

Secondly, Up to this period this question could not be 
dejinitivehj settled in the mind of any one. The farthest any 
one could go was, to be more or less thoroughly convinced 
in his mind that he was. The proper and only certitude of 



206 DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 

this fact, as all Christians well know, was his resurrection 
and ascension. 

Thirdly, His death and the manner of it shocked the 
faith of the stoutest of the apostles — that is, their faith in 
Jesus had not been fully established. Their belief gave 
way. They were all — all shocked, dismayed, confounded, 
amazed. But this is no evidence of infidelity. Lack of 
belief in Jesiis could not now, nor of course previously, be 
counted apostasy. 

Fourthly, Looking at the Church, then, as the chief in- 
habitants of Palestine, and being spread away out beyond 
Palestine almost over the known world, it is not probable 
that practical questions about Jesus pressed themselves home 
to any great degree upon all the Jews. Indeed, seeing that 
he preached but about three years, and that altogether in 
central Palestine — that the means of intercourse was very 
slow and sparse — I do not see that it is at all certain that 
all the living Jews, or the half of them, had ever heard of 
Jesus before this time ; though in Judea and close around 
there, he was, as before described, very well and very popu- 
larly known. 

And, let one other consideration be borne in mind — ^that 
so far as Jews were concerned, there was, in those days, no 
such thing as joining the Church, They were all already 
in the Church. The only question was, who stayed in and 
who went out. I would not take upon me to say, however, 
that on the day of Pentecost, or indeed at any other time, 
none joined the Church. But on this point we have no 
historic information. Those who were Jews, and who then 
and there gave in their adhesion to Christ, did not join the 
Church, because they were already in it. They all, apostles 
and all, now or about this time, did a very proper and 
necessary thing in the Church, viz., they gave the proper 
and appropriate evidence of their faith — now it was faith — 



DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST?, 207 

that Jesus was verily and truly Christ. Before this time no 
one even had faith in Jesus. That could not be. And even 
after the resurrection, no one could be said to have faith in 
Jesus, or apostatize from him, until an opportunity offered, 
and the question of Jesus's claims to the Messiahship were 
fairly presented. The resurrection had but just then hap- 
pened, and many had not heard of it, and many others had 
heard only rumors about it. 

"When we inquire, therefore, whether these or those Jews 
rejected Christ, the meaning is, after they had had a fair 
opportunity to know of the resurrection, did they receive 
and embrace Jesus by faith as the Christ in whom they had 
always believed? If they did, then they continued to be 
Christians ; and if they did not, then having formerly pro- 
fessed him by professing the Christ of prophecy, he being 
the same Christ, of course they apostatized from him and 
rejected him. 

And we must remember, the history is exceeding brief 
and incomplete in its explanations. Thousands of things 
occurred which are not mentioned. Of the first rallying 
around the standard of the risen Jesus, no particular men- 
tion is made. We have no allusion even to the particular 
instance or instances ; nor do we know at all how many 
there were. We are obliged to believe that before the day 
which, to distinguish it, we call Pentecost, and after the 
resurrection, the apostles at least, and whether a few or 
thousands more; we know not, had publicly banded them- 
selves together, by solemn, mutual profession, that Jesus 
had risen according to the Scriptures, and that he was the 
Christ of their faith, in whom they had always believed. 

Very soon after the ascension, they held in Jerusalem 
what was called an ecclesiastical council, preparatory to 
the election of an apostle in the stead of Judas. This is 
what is generally understood by the hundred and twenty 



208 DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 

mentioned in Acts i. 15. The meaning could hardly be 
that there were merely one hundred and twenty persons 
there who professed faith in Jesus. It was a meeting of one 
hundred and twenty ministers. This constituted a regular 
council in these times, for the transaction of any important 
Church business. We would naturally infer that a council 
of this sort was held to elect the new apostle. 

It is quite likely that on the very day of the ascension 
there was a considerable manifestation of decided faith in 
Jesus. This was no doubt very informally done, but just 
then we would naturally look for a considerable rallying of 
the friends of Jesus, now perfectly convinced of the verity 
of his Messiahship. The feast of Pentecost was approach- 
ing — perhaps not far distant. The Church was awake and 
astir. Great events were rapidly passing. The friends of 
Jesus rallied on this unlooked-for and joyous occasion. Up 
to this time there was nothing seriously disturbing the unity 
of the Churches, though there was in the Church very strong 
contention about Jesus — whether he was Christ or not. 

And so here we have a nucleus — a few in the Church, at 
the first time it could be done, openly and avowedly, by the 
grace of God, under the superintendence of the Holy Ghost, 
settled this question at least for themselves. This, in the 
nature of things, was a new question. It could not possibly 
arise until now. And, moreover, it could be fairly and un- 
derstandingly presented only to such as had had large op- 
portunities of seeing Jesus, his preaching, and his miracles. 
And in a form in which the question could be definitively 
settled, it is now for the first time presented, and necessarily 
to a few, as compared with the whole Church. 

The Church was at this moment in a very anomalous, 
though a very natural condition. In the nature of things 
they could not be otherwise, unless Jesus Christ had made 
his appearance in the days of Adam. 



BID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 209 

We see that a nucleus was first formed in the Church, 
and among the members thereof, on the ground of faith 
ill the risen Jesus, he being the same identical Christ in 
whom they had all always believed. And now others, and 
others, and still others, rallied by the same profession of the 
same faith. 

But how many besides the apostles were thus openly 
associated, before they were joined by the three thousand 
soon afterward spoken of, we have no information. Con- 
sidering the condition of the Church then in and around 
the city, we might naturally infer that there might have 
been several hundreds, or probably thousands. 

Now, outside this nucleus, or company, in the Church, 
thus associated, what was necessarily the condition of the 
entire Church in Jerusalem, and everywhere else, in relation 
to this particular vital point — the question of faith in 
Jesus? Their condition was simply this, that they had 
not decided it at all. They could not do so until fully and 
fairly informed about it. They neither believed nor dis- 
believed in the risen Jesus. Some knew a good deal 
about it, and were more or less strongly inclined to this 
side or to that ; and then there were others away off who 
had perhaps never heard of Jesus at all, or had not heard 
of his death, or his reported resurrection. 

This was the attitude of affairs when Acts ii. 5, begins to 
inform us of the preliminaries to the great uprising of the 
Church on the memorable day of Pentecost. "We must 
look at the state of things that existed, and not imagine 
a state of things that did not exist. 

Most of the Jewish people were not then in Jerusalem, 
nor near there ; and many who were there had just arrived 
in the city, and with no reliable means of certain informa- 
tion about Jesus, they were quite unprepared to settle down 
in any belief about many things they no doubt heard 



210 DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 

respecting him. Christianity does not come by intuition — 
it rests upon information. 

And then there \Yere others — thousands, hundreds of 
thousands, millions of Jews — living at a distance, and 
in the nooks and corners of neighborhoods, far and near, 
and even in the city, who, as yet, had heard little or 
nothing about the resurrection of Jesus ; and so they could 
not have a settled belief about it. Nor could they exercise 
faith in the thing upon mere reports and rumors. They 
required as much solid foundation for their faith as we 
do now for ours. They all believed in Christ; but now 
the vital question arises, Is Jesus the Christ ? 

At the preaching which now took place, it is said that 
" there were added unto them about three thousand souls." 
We are now perhaps better prepared to understand this 
remark. It is in precise keeping with what had previously 
taken place with others. About three thousand made the 
same kind of declaration of faith in and adherence to 
Jesus, acknowledging him as Christ, as those had pre- 
viously done. The great outpouring of the Holy Spirit 
previously mentioned, roused the Church and waked up 
the people greatly on the subject. 

The common notion seems to be, that these three thou- 
sand were then and there converted in the ordinary sense 
of Christian conversion, and many suppose that they then 
joined the Church. Joined what Church ? They were already 
in the Church, every one of them, for aught that we know, 
and had been all their lives. They certainly did not then 
join the Church ; and as to their being converted, we have 
no information on that point. It is nevertheless altogether 
probable that on such an occasion many of them were then 
converted. It would seem strange if it were not so. But 
on the other hand, it would be out of the question to sup- 
pose that so many persons — all members of the Church — 



BID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 211 

were unconverted. Indeed, they are mentioned in the 
history under the general designation of " devout men." 
The mass of them were undoubtedly pious people. 

This believing in Jesus, and acknowledging him as the 
Christ, had necessarily nothing to do with conversion. 
AVhen they were converted, that question did not and could 
not arise. This was undoubtedly the case with the apostles 
and several others who are mentioned. They were con- 
verted, and were among the most pious men that ever 
lived before they believed any thing about a risen Jesus. 
Unlike other Christians who lived either before or after 
that period, this question about Jesus, and the evidences 
whether he was or was not Christ, arose in the course of 
their religious lives. 

So that in the nature of things, there was just as much 
necessity for this adherence to Jesus then, and an acknowl- 
edgment of him, on the part of converted persons who had 
been solidly pious for years, as for one just then converted, 
or one converted now. 

Ante-Messianic Christians had, of course, nothing to do 
with the particular question of Jesus ; and with post-Mes- 
sianic Christians, the question of Christ and of Jesus is j)re- 
sented as one single question. But to those Christians who 
lived both before and after the resurrection, the case is 
peculiar. They first believed in Christ generally — all there 
was to be believed in — and then after the resurrection, 
so soon as the fact could be brought fairly and authorita- 
tively before them, they must, to continue to be Christians, 
believe and confess him also. 

This many of the pious people of that day did. First, 
the twelve apostles and many nearly associated with them 
— ^we know not how many — did, and on this memorable 
occasion " about three thousand " did the same thing. 



212 DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 



CHAPTER XXXI. 

DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST ? CONTINUED IN AN EXAMI- 
NATION OF THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH FOR THIRTY 
YEARS OR SO SUBSEQUENT TO THE RESURRECTION. 

Keeping carefully in view the considerations mentioned 
in the last chapter, we are now prepared to look at a few 
items in the history of the Church, such as we find in Scrip- 
ture, and to ascertain therefrom whether the Jews — " all 
except a few," or "almost to a man," or what probable 
proportion of them — rejected Jesus Christ as the Saviour ; 
or whether a portion — some respectable portion as to num- 
bers or otherwise — did not acknowledge and heartily receive 
Jesus as the Christ in whom they formerly believed. Let 
the reader have patience. 

The reader will now please to bear in mind — until I 
notify him otherwise — that all the friends and followers of 
Christ — apostles and all — which I shall mention, were all 
Jews — every one. 

In the next previous chapter we have seen that " about 
three thousand " Jews, on the day of Pentecost — and how 
many before — since the resurrection, we know not — acknowl- 
edged Jesus as Christ, and were "steadfast" in their 
adhesion to him. We have, then, at least that number to 
begin with, or rather, to proceed with. 

And in Acts ii. 47, it is said that Christ's doctrine " found 



DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 213 

favor with all the people," and that " the Lord added to the 
Church daily/' etc. The word Church, we should remem- 
ber, was not then used in the sense in which w^e now use it. 
Literally it meant company, or assembly, or association, or 
fraternity, or brotherhood, and was applied as well to secu- 
lar as to religious associations. Li this instance it denoted 
those persons in or among the Church or Jewish people 
who, as before explained, were associated in the faith that 
the crucified and risen Jesus was the true Christ. "Added 
daily" — ^this must mean that this association under the 
banner of Jesus was rapidly increasing, as opportunity was 
afforded to other and still other Jewish people. 

In Acts iv. 4, it is said : " Many of them which heard the 
word believed, and the number of the men was about five 
thousand." 

This verse has been strangely construed by some. They 
think this accession increased the whole number to five 
thousand. The language is very clear ; it relates a separate 
and distinct occasion. " Many which heard the word " — 
evidently meaning then and there — "believed;" and the 
number of the vien, tg)v dvdpibv — not of all who then be- 
lieved — was about five thousand, without counting women — ■■ 
if there were any — ^which would seem at least probable. 

Those who regard these occasions as mere instances of 
ordinary revival of religion, of persons being converted and 
joining the Church, and according to their experience in 
such matters, think that five thousand was almost too large a 
number to join the Church at one time, and are willing to 
let do\\Ti the plain language used to mean that at that time 
the whole number of believers amounted to five thousand. 
This is a short-sighted view of the matter. Instead thereof, 
it was the early rallying of the great Church of Israel to 
the great fact, just now for the first time presented to the 
eye and the acceptance of the Church, that the risen Jesus 



214 DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 

was their Christ ; and the sacred writer is noting briefly and 
incidentally how rapidly the Church gave in its adhesion to 
this great and vital fact. They rallied by thousands — by 
three thousands, by five thousands, and " daily," and " many," 
by " multitudes," and by " myriads," as we shall see. 

Acts iv. 21 : "So when they had farther threatened them 
they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish 
them, because of the people ;" and farther : " for all men 
glorified God for that which was done." 

This does not mean literally all men ; for those priests 
and rulers, and as many as sided with them, did not glorify 
God for the resurrection of Jesus, and the consequent glori- 
ous brightening of the prospects of the Church. But the 
phrase all men cannot mean less than that the doctrine of 
Christ was popular in the Church, and that its friends were 
rapidly rallying. 

Acts iv. 34 : "And the multitude of them that believed," 
etc. The only words in common use then expressive of 
numbers in a high degree were multitude and thousand ; and 
these words — especially the former — are very frequently 
brought into requisition in describing these scenes. 

Acts V. 14 : "And believers were the more added to the 
Lord ; multitudes, both of men and women." 

Acts V. 26, in speaking of the imprisonment of the 
Apostles Peter and John, it is said : " Then went the captain 
with the officers, and brought them without violence, for 
they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned." 
Without violence, means mthout force. When the apostles 
found they Avere summoned by the Sanhedrim — recognizing 
its ecclesiastical authority — they went without compulsion ; 
but the people being so much opposed to their molestations 
and persecutions on the part of the rulers, priests, etc., were 
to be feared, lest the officers executing the commands of the 
high priest might be stoned in a tumult. 



DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 215 

Doddridge says : " For the people were so fully persuaded 
of a Divine power engaged with the apostles, that they held 
their persons sacred, and would not have borne any open 
attack upon them.'' Benson copies Doddridge verbatim, 
Clarke says : " The officers, on reaching the temple, found 
the multitude gladly receiving the doctrine of the apostles ; 
and so intent on hearing all the words of this life, that they 
were afraid to show any hostility to the apostles, lest the 
people should stone them." 

Acts V. 42 : "And daily in the temple and in every house 
they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ." In the 
temple — showing that their ecclesiastical relations remained 
intact. And it was a " daily " business. 

The estrangement in the Church, which began to manifest 
itself three years before, when Jesus began to preach, had 
now become separation, and, among those most nearly 
engaged in it, hostility. There began to be two distinct 
parties. These received Jesus, and those rejected him. 
But rejecting can be fairly affirmed only where it was done 
deliberately, with full knowledge of all the facts. 

The sixth chapter of Acts opens with an account of the 
increase of the believers in Jesus to such an extent, that 
additional deacons were necessary. It shows also that this 
increase was not confined to the Jews of Judea, or even of 
Palestine; but that it extended away, away among the 
Hellenists and Grecians. 

Acts vi. 7, is very significant : "And the word of God 
increased, and the number of the disciples multiplied in 
Jerusalem greatly, and a great company of the priests were 
obedient to the faith." I am not able to concur in the sur- 
prise I see frequently expressed by commentators and others, 
that so many of the priests should believe in Jesus : the 
wonder with me is that more of them did not do so — that 
so many of them rejected Christ. 



216 DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST ? 



c 



"Multiplied greatly," and "a great company of the 
priests" gave in their adhesion. This does not look as 
though the Jews were " forsaken of God ;" that " all but a 
few/' " nearly all," " almost to a man," rejected Christ. If 
nothing were said on this point but this one verse, it would 
show that at least a considerable number of Jews received 
him. 

Acts viii. 4 : " Therefore they that were scattered abroad 
went everywhere, preaching the word" — waking up the 
Church to a recognition of their Saviour; to a proper 
understanding of their own religion ; to an acknowledgment 
of the great religious fact, which not until now had become 
a fact. 

Acts viii. 6 : "And the people with one accord gave heed 
unto those things which Philip spoke." Very strong lan- 
guage ! Doddridge says it means " unanimously attended 
to those things which Philip spoke." And remember, they 
were all Jews — every one. Benson copies Doddridge. 
Samaria, it will be remembered, where this preaching w^as 
done by Philip, and where the Jew^s " unanimously attended 
to," or " with one accord gave heed," etc., was one of the 
largest cities in Palestine. 

In Acts viii. 7, the word " many " is twice used in the 
same connection ; and in Acts viii. 8, it is said : "And there 
was great joy in that city." It was no small matter — the 
rallying to the standard of Jesus by the Jews of this city 
was not confined to " a few." 

Acts viii. 14: "Now^ when the apostles which were at 
Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of 
God, they sent unto them Peter and John." Samaria was 
a large city. It is not, I presume, intended to mean that all 
the people believed in Jesus ; but it could scarcely mean less 
than that the doctrine was very popular there ; at least, it is 
said that " there was great joy in that city" in consequence. 



DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 217 

Acts viii. 40 : " But Philip was found at Azotus ; and 
passing through, he preached in all the cities till he came to 
Cesarea." In all the cities — while the apostles and many 
others must have been doing the same elsewhere. 

Acts ix. introduces Saul— how he breathed out threaten- 
ings, and " desired letters to Damascus to the synagogues." 
By this time the Jewish officials had so planted themselves 
against the doctrine of Jesus being Christ, and had fought 
so hard against it, and it had nevertheless so increased on 
their hands, that it had, even now, become a matter of great 
national concern. "A very few," indeed ! The power of 
the priests in maintaining that Jesus was an impostor, was 
now in great danger of being overridden by the force of 
numbers, so prevalent was the doctrine of Jesus. 

Damascus was not in Palestine, but a long w^ay off in 
Syria, and the fear that the authority of the Sanhedrim — 
great as was its authority — would be subjugated by popular 
force, w^as so great, that they commissioned Saul— one of the 
very first and most pow^erful men in the nation — ^to go to 
Syria and try if he could not arrest the progress of this 
thing. But Saul not only did not arrest it, but became its 
great champion and propagator. 

In Acts ix. 31, it is said : " Then had the Churches rest 
throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, and were 
edified ; and w^alking in the fear of the Lord, and in the 
comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied." This lan- 
guage implies that the Jew^s in some large numbers were 
acknowledging Jesus. 

Actsix. 35: "And all that dw-elt in Lydda and Saron 
saw him, (Peter,) and turned to the Lord." ''AW that 
dw^elt in those tow^ns ; not, I presume, meaning every one, 
literally, but the great mass. Lydda was a considerable 
city, and Saron, or Sharon, was the name of both a tow^n 
and region of countrv. I do not know^ which is alluded to 



218 DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 

Acts ix. 42 : "And it was known throughout all Joppa, 
and many believed on the Lord." 

We must now pause and review our ground a moment. 
We are now about to approach the preaching to Cornelius 
by Peter, and are probably about fifteen years from the 
resurrection — ^the true time. The chronology is known to 
be about three years shorter than the true time, just at this 
point. 

I notified the reader that I would inform him when disci- 
pleship with Jesus came from beyond the pale of the 
Church strictly. We are now at that point. We have, how- 
ever, by no means done with Jewish Christians^ for many, 
many multitudes of Jews came forward and gave in their 
adhesion to Jesus after this ; but from this point forward, 
those out of the Church joined themselves with the disciples 
likewise ; that is, the preachers went out of the Church and 
preached to everybody. But I ask the reader to look back 
over the ground we have now traveled, and see if some 
goodly portion of the Jews have not acknowledged Jesus 
Christ by faith. At this point the entire Church — the 
believing, apostolic part of it — were Jews, without an excep- 
tion ; and at this time the Church must have embraced con- 
siderable numbers. Considering the whole amount of Jews, 
which are generally estimated at about six or seven millions, 
the language I have quoted — considering, too, that it is 
merely incidental, and by no means intended to give specific 
information as to numbers — can but warrant the belief that, 
up to this period, the apostolic Church must have numbered 
hundreds of thousands, if not millions. As to there being 
" a few," " very few," it is not too much to say that such 
expressions are ridiculous. Dr. Nevin enumerates two 
Jews who received Jesus, and says there were "others." 
Such remarks from men of learning are out of all charac- 
ter. But let us proceed a little farther. 



DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 219 

Acts xi. 19-21 : " Now they which were scattered abroad 
upon the persecution that arose about Stephen, traveled as 
far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word 
to none but unto the Jews only." "And the hand of the 
Lord was with them, and a great number believed and 
turned unto the Lord." And these Vv^ere "Jews only." 
And in Acts xi. 24, it is said of the preaching of Barnabas 
at Antioch : "And much people was added unto the Lord." 

The first allusion we have to discipleship from without 
the Church is most probably in Acts xi. 26 ; and in Acts 
xii. 24, we have the incidental remark, that " the word of 
God grew and multiplied." 

When Paul preached first at Antioch, his auditory seem 
to have been mostly Jews, as his address to them was: 
"Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience." 
And again : " Men and brethren, children of the stock of 
Abraham." 

In Acts xiii. 44, it is said : "And the next sabbath-day 
came almost the w^hole city together to hear the w^ord of 
God." This was a mixed audience of Jews and others. 

Acts xiv. 1 : "And it came to pass in Iconium, that they 
went both together (Paul and Barnabas) into the syna- 
gogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude 
both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed." 

And the reader should also bear in mind, that when Jews 
and others are spoken of as helieving, the same thing is by 
no means to be understood in both cases. The Jews already 
believed in the Old Testament, however well or ill they — 
any particular ones — may have understood it ; and so they 
believed in Christ And now when they are said to believe, 
the meaning is that they believe in Jesus as Christ. But 
others than Jews, not being understood to believe in re- 
vealed religion at all, are now understood to entertain and 
believe in the w^hole subject primarily. 



220 DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 

Acts xviii. 4 : And so it is said that Paul, at Corinth, 
" reasoned in the synagogues every Sabbath-day, and per- 
suaded the Jews and the Greeks. And when Silas and 
Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in 
the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ." 
And in Acts xviii. 19, Paul " reasoned with the Jews." So 
that still the work was mostly among the Jews. 

Acts xix. 17 : *Mnd this was known to all the Jews and 
Greeks also, dwelling at Ephesus ; and fear fell on them all, 
and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified." And 
Acts XX. 21 : " Testifying both to the Jews and also to the 
Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord 
Jesus Christ." 

In Acts xxi. 30, w^e have a very important remark, 
throwing much light on the subject now under considera- 
tion. Paul was now at Jerusalem, with the other apostles, 
having returned from an extensive tour in the north and 
west, and had given an account of his labors, ministry, and 
the manner in which the Messiahship of Jesus was received. 
"And when they heard it," (the account continues,) " they 
glorified the Lord, and said unto him. Thou seest, brother, 
how many thousands of Jews there are w^hich believe." 
Now, this word which we translate thousands, means ten 
thousands, or myriads. We should read it, hoiv many ten- 
thousands, or how many myriads. The meaning is, an 
immense, countless number. The language they used is 
put to its utmost capacity to express very great numbers. 
The word million is of more recent origin. 

How, then, can it be said that the Jews denied Christ f We 
are told they were all the bitterest enemies of Jesus and the 
apostles — " all but a few," " nearly all," " almost to a man," 
and many like expressions. The writer of the Acts exhausts 
all the synonyms — what few there were — in the language he 
used, expressive of high numbers, in describing and oft 



DID THE JEWS REJECT CPIRIST ? 221 

repeating the great number of Jews who, so soon as reason- 
able opportunity oiiered, gave in their adhesion to the doc- 
trine of the Messiahship of Jesus promptly and heartily. 

Observations of this sort might be greatly extended if 
necessary. There are many other expressions in Acts, and 
many in the Epistles, which go to show that a very large 
number of Jews identified themselves with Christ, declaring 
and believing in favor of the risen Jesus. The world was 
gone after him. If we let him thus go, all men will believe 
on him. The apostles turned the world upside down in 
recommending his doctrines ; and of the great power of the 
Sanhedrim it was said : " Behold how ye prevail nothing." 
" Ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine.'' And many 
other remarks, either hyperbolic, or of an extremely ele- 
vated character, might be cited in support of the position 
here taken. 

And then on the oth^ hand, what is there in the Acts 
which goes to show that the Jews " nearly all," " all but a 
few," " almost to a man," rejected the claims of Jesus to 
the Messiahship ? There is nothing. Of course, if there is 
any thing of this sort in Scripture at all, it must be in Acts 
or the Epistles. I have carefully examined every passage — 
as any one may easily do — and the simple truth is, that not 
only is there no expression going to show that nearly all the 
Jews rejected Christ, but indeed there is none which states — 
by any fair explication — that any very large number did so. 

I do not by any means state that no very large number 
of Jews did reject Christ ; I only say that this is not stated 
in Scripture. 

The reader, in making this examination, will frequently 
meet with the expression, " the Jews^ " The Jews " did or 
said so and so. But if this expression be examined in 
every case, it will be seen that wherever it is connected with 
opposition to Jesus or the apostles, it in no instance refers 



222 DID THE JEWS REJECT CHRIST? 

to the Jewish people generally, or any considerable number 
of them, but is always a local remark, referring to such 
Jews as were then and there present, and could therefore 
mean but a very few at most ; or — as it does in several 
places — to the Jewish officials. A thing done by their San- 
hedrim was frequently said to have been done by "the 
Jews ;'' and " the Jews" frequently means the officials, the 
Sanhedrim. This is the case in John vii. 1. 

I conclude, therefore, that by any fair explication of lan- 
guage, the Scriptures do not state that any considerable 
proportion of the whole Jewish people, amounting to a 
majority, or even a large minority, ever did oppose Christ, 
his preaching, his Messiahship, or his apostles, or had any 
concern with his death. 

Secondly. It is nevertheless abundantly true, from many 
unmistakable considerations outside of the Scriptures, that 
a very large number of Jews did refuse to acknowledge the 
Messiahship of Jesus, and did oppose the doctrines and 
preaching of the apostles. The Church divided, and both 
parties were large ; but which party was the larger, and 
which the smaller, no man can say with any certainty. 

But for my own part, after a careful examination of all 
the facts stated, I consider it highly probable that, of the 
Jews living at the time of the death of Christ, a majority 
acknowledged Jesus ; that is, they did so so soon as they 
had reasonable opportunity to consider and fairly and 
rationally decide so important a question. 



JEWISH SEPARATION AND ADHERENCE. 223 



CHAPTER XXXII. 

THE JEWISH SEPARATION AND ADHERENCE, AND THE 
PERIOD NECESSARY TO IT. 

We have seen that the Jews who were living at the time 
of the death of Christ, and who then formed what is 
generally known as the Jewish Church, divided into two 
separate associations, parties, or communities. And we 
have seen why they divided — upon what question they 
split; and we can but see that the whole proceeding was 
very natural. If we imagine ourselves to be then present, 
and suppose the people to be natural people, acting ration- 
ally, moved by such impulses — truth and error — as usually 
influence men, and noticing the movings and impulses of 
religion on the one hand, and of selfish ambition and world- 
ly-mindedness on the other, the whole subject will be freed 
from all mystery, and the natural workings of religion 
and irreligion — of truth and error — will appear as natural 
as any fact seen anywhere else in the history of human 
afiairs. 

According to many writers, this portion of the world's 
history is too artificial — too stifi* and unnatural. The 
scenes are — many of them, at least — too mechanical, 
drawn with a pencil too exclusively literary and scholastic 
for common -sense readers. The historic Scriptures, par- 
ticularly at this point, are too often read as though they 



224 THE JEWISH SEPARATION 

were intended merely to give us historic information of 
all that happened, and for the mere sake of the hist(»ric 
account; whereas, much of the historic Scri]3tures of the 
NcAV Testament is not very historic. 

The Gospels are historic of many incidents in the life of 
the Saviour ; and the Acts of the Apostles is almost the 
only history of the Church for half a century or more 
afterward. But in a strictly literary sense, The Acts of the 
Apostles is a misnomer. It relates but very little of the 
ads of the twelve apostles. Indeed, it mentions very little 
about them. A very few things are briefly alluded to of two 
or three of them, while the great, valuable, and incessant 
labors of most of theiji — labors and incidents which must 
have formed the great body of the history of the Church — 
are not so much as alluded to. Suppose we had the princi- 
pal ministerial acts of the apostles written out — what effects 
it w^ould produce no man can tell. The lack of a more 
minute history of the Church in those times was not, I 
presume, accidental. In an ordinary history, only a few 
things are attempted to be described, but here we have 
not even an outline. The things to be included and ex- 
cluded turned upon different questions than those we would 
have raised. The many things excluded were no doubt 
purposely left out. The history written was not for the 
exaltation of the men who figured in it, but for wiser 
and better ends. 

Very many things which, in themselves, must have pos- 
sessed the greatest imaginable importance at the time, 
are wholly unnoticed. 

So that in using those records for our advantage now, we 
must do so in the exercise of a sound discretion and an 
enlightened judgment. On the one hand, we must guard 
against mere sujDpositions, or an unsupported imagination 
of what might have happened ; and on the other, an 



AND ADHERENCE. 225 

exclusive reliance on the mere verbiage, as if nothing 
occurred but what is particularly mentioned. 

The question on which the Church divided was as natural 
and rational as could be imagined. It must necessarily 
arise at some time, and in precisely the form it is now 
presented. Jesus was a young man amongst them, and 
whatever peculiarities there might have been about him, 
whatever claims to the Messiahship he might have put 
forth, or might have lacked, in the judgment of any, the 
question was an open one, and must be settled ; and be 
settled not by the Church merely, but by each individual 
person. This question w^as precisely the same then it is 
now. No man can be a Christian now until he first believe 
the general doctrine of Christ, and then believe that Jesus 
is Christ. And, as above explained, no man could believe, 
finally and conclusively, that Jesus was Christ until after 
the resurrection. 

This question first presented itself to those who were 
then and there nearest about, and most cognizant of these 
things. But few, comparatively, of the Jews were at that 
time, or could be, in or around Jerusalem. There may 
have been fifty or one hundred thousand in and around 
the city. 

Nothing could be more natural at that time, and in 
those circumstances, than the dispute about Jesus. The 
members of the great council, as the Sanhedrim was 
called, were in office, and loved their positions; and the 
chief priests, whether members of the great council or not, 
loved theirs; and Jesus claimed supreme ecclesiastical au- 
thority, and the people vehemently claimed it for him. 
Make not, said he, my Father's house a house of merchan- 
dise. By what authority doest thou these things? they 
inquired of him. I will ask you one question, said he, 
about the ministry and preaching of John : Was that by 
8 



226 THE JEWISH SEPARATION 

divine direction, or was it a set of mere human opinions ? 
Answer that question, and that will give you an answer 
to yours. John preached that the Christ was now present, 
and on at least one occasion he pointed out his identical 
personality. Was that ministry true ? Answer me. But, 
poor, short-sighted men, they could not. And instead of 
trying to reply according to truth, they tried according 
to expediency. If we say it was true, we thereby condemn 
ourselves at once, for the farther question will thereupon 
arise. Why then do you not receive the Christ he pointed 
out ? But if w^e say the preaching of John was not divine, 
then we encounter the fierce opposition of the people, for 
the people are clamorous in favor of John's preaching, 
and of the Christ w^hich he announced. And so the great 
Sanhedrim flatly surrendered all logical, reasonable, and 
debatable ground, and threw themselves back upon their 
mere official power. 

They ignorantly supposed that an acknowdedgment of 
the authority w^hich Jesus claimed, would strip them of 
their authority. But this was not necessarily so, by 
any means. He had nothing against the Sanhedrim as 
such. It w^as neither wTong nor out of place. It exercised, 
in the main, about such ecclesiastical authority as usually 
is understood to belong to the supreme Church judicatory, 
by whatever name it may be called. The same kind of a 
court, mainly, and mixture of court and legislature — ^that 
is, a body exercising both legislative and judicial pow^ers — 
modified more or less in external form, has continued in 
the Church from that day to this. The Sanhedrim, as 
it then existed, had by no means so much of precedent as 
subsequent. In the form we there see, it is not traceable, 
I believe, back historically over about sixty-nine or seventy 
years. 

There was no objection to the Sanhedrim. If the men 



AND ADHERENCE. 227 

composing it had acknowledge'd Christ, it might have con- 
tinued uninterruptedly ; and the same functions, authority, 
jurisdiction, did continue. 

These men were ambitious of office, and so opposed the 
Saviour ; and though " the people " were opposed to them, 
they could still gather some numerical strength from their 
personal friends and hangers-on. It is strange they could 
not secure more. 

Here the breach began. The officials thought that by 
getting the Roman authority to crucify Jesus, that that 
would be the end of it. But in this they w^ere in a great 
mistake. They managed their cause along through the 
scenes of the resurrection in an awkward and bungling 
manner, it is true, but as well as they could. And now, 
having taken this strong ground, they could not recede 
without, as they regarded it, entire disgrace, and the loss 
of every thing to them ; and so they rallied their forces and 
pushed matters to the utmost extremes. 

They declared the believers in Christ heretics, because, 
as they declared, he was only a false Christ. And the 
believers in Jesus clung the closer to him. And so those 
preachers who sided with the officials sustained them, and 
preached the more against Jesus; while those who sided 
with Jesus and the apostles sustained them, and preached 
Jesus and the resurrection. And the strife extended, and 
the feeling deepened and widened; and others, and still 
others, more at a distance, both geographically and mor- 
ally, were drawn in from time to time, and from year to 
year, until every Jew then living took decided ground on 
this side or on that. 

There was no other question but this one. There was no 
difference between • the parties about the Church, its form, 
Organization, jurisdiction, nor any thing of the sort. The 
believers in Jesus, of course, unchurched the others, and 



228 THE JEWISH SEPARATION 

vice versa. Here there was no debatable ground. It is 
apparent, and Avas then, that whichever party was right 
about Jesus being the Christ, was right, and constituted the 
Church, and the other party was out. The only vital ques- 
tion in religion is Christ. Before the resurrection, it was 
simply Christ ; but since then, Jesus must be acknowledged 
to be Christ. 

And so the question deepened, and spread, and intensi- 
fied. On all hands the question was seen and acknowledged 
to be vitally important. It divided families, friends, and 
associations, and still continued to deepen. The Jewish 
officials thought that by maintaining their official status, 
that would maintain the Church ; and the Christian party 
thought that that would make no difference — that the 
Church must follow the true religion. 

And the people followed their personal inclinations just 
as natural people w^ould in such circumstances. Many 
took a warm interest in the matter at the first — that is, 
those near at hand. I see nothing whatever to weaken 
or disparage the belief that those persons baptized by John 
took sides with the apostles. Their baptism certainly 
placed them there, and if they maintained the doctrine 
of their baptism, and did not backslide from the vow of 
that baptism, of which I see no intimation in Scripture, 
then they were of the apostolic party. 

But however this may be, the parties arrayed themselves 
against each other at a very early period, and the strife 
widened and deepened; and it is apparent it could not 
terminate in a day, nor in any short time. While some 
took a deep interest in the contest, and took ground prompt- 
ly, others naturally felt less interest in it, and did not bring 
themselves to a decision so rapidly. 

At the first they were all in the same synagogues, and 
here this party, and there that, may have predominated^ 



AND ADHERENCE. 229 

Outwardly, ostensibly, legally, they all occupied the same 
ecclesiastical position, and were all members of their re- 
spective synagogues, the same after as before this question 
about Jesus arose. 

But man's nature, prejudices, and propensities forbid 
that they should long remain so. They never agreed to 
separate. There Avas no formal separation. There was 
never a time w^hen the two parties were together on one 
day and separate on the next. The separation was natural 
— ^not artificial. Each claimed to believe and to preach 
the truth about Jesus — the one that he was an impostor, 
and the other that he was Christ ; and the preachers were 
the leaders of their respective parties. There were hundreds 
of preachers on either side from the first. Not at the very- 
first, for at the very first " all the disciples forsook him and 
fled." But they soon rallied, and formed a powerful nu- 
cleus and a strong party. 

But at this time most of the Jews were at a distance, 
and had for a time no fair opportunity to take sides in the 
matter ; and as the resurrection was proclaimed here and 
there, those becoming cognizant of the facts gave in their 
adhesion to them, or refused to do so. And as this process 
went on, and only as it went on, can it be said that the 
Jews became firmly and finally identified with this party 
or with that. 

And although this question was soon carried away beyond 
Jerusalem — as in four, five, ten, or twenty years we hear 
of its agitation in distant parts — yet its preaching was 
confined mainly, so far as w^e learn, to the cities or the 
most central portions of the country, at least for some 
years. . ' 

And then it must be noted, too, that many vacillated, 
hesitated, believed, and turned back, and then rallied again 
— some of them ; and then there were others who, with the 



230 JEWISH SEPARATION AND ADHERENCE. 

facts and doctrines of the resurrection, in Galatia and else- 
where, took up very erroneous and unscriptural notions 
about some religious ceremonies, which in their nature 
belonged to the teachings of the Church before Christ 
came. These persons got very much warped in their 
views, and disturbed the faith of others to a considerable 
extent. 

So that, considering these things, the case, reviewed in 
these aspects, did not become settled among all the Jews 
then living — ^that is, they did not all adhere to this side 
or to that, in less than the space of perhaps twenty or 
thirty years or more. 

We may presume, however, from all the circumstances, 
from what we learn in the Scriptures and out of them, 
that before the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by 
the Romans, which occurred in A.D. 70, the Jews had 
well and finally separated; and each party carried with 
it the form of the Church as it existed when they were 
all together — the Christian party, of course, discontinuing 
those practices and forms of teaching which, in their 
nature, pertained to the period before Messiah, and the 
other party continuing them. 

One party or the other was certainly apostate ; and, as 
between those parties, that question is not settled to this 
day. At the present hour each party claims to be the 
true, ancient Church ; and that the one is ancient and 
biblical, and the other new and apostate, is philosophically 
certain. And, being myself a Christian, it follows that I 
hold that the apostolic Church is the ancient stock and 
true Church, and that those who reject Jesus are the new, 
the false, and the apostate Church. 



OLIVE-TREES. 231 



CHAPTER XXXIII. 

THE OLIVE-TREES OF THE ELEVENTH OF ROMANS. 

By introducing the metaphor of two olive-trees, a good 
and a wild olive, it is apparent the author intended to 
make them represent two different classes of persons, in 
different religious conditions; and in endeavoring to get 
firmly and properly hold of the apostle's teaching, I think 
it is not too much that I insist on two points, viz. : 

First That the figurative teaching be understood in 
the most natural and simple way, without any far-fetched 
suppositions of what possibly might be ; and. 

Secondly, That the lesson be understood in a way that 
will agree with the general scope of biblical teaching. 

The good, or cultivated olive-tree, represents the Church 
as it then existed; and the wild tree represents the other 
party which is always contrasted with the Church — the 
unbelieving world, or Gentiles, as they were generally 
called. 

The branches that were "broken off" from the good 
olive-tree, were those persons in the Church who broke off 
from the Church by denying its central faith — the Mes- 
siahship of Jesus. Those engrafted into the good olive 
when the others w^ere broken off, were those outside the 
Church, unbelieving, or heathen persons, who were or might 
be expected to join the Church. 



232 THE OLIVE-TREES OP 

Nothing can be more simple or plain than this. The 
good olive-tree stands firm and unshaken where it always 
grew. It did not die ; it was not plucked up by the roots, 
nor was it cut down and cast into the fire ; but it grew on ; 
it suffered the loss of some of its branches, it is true, but 
that did not cause its destruction. 

Or, without the figure, the Church remained standing 
firmly where it always stood. Some of its members left it ; 
and that indeed was a sad thing, though it was not ruinous, 
because it was built upon the foundation, not of the apostles, 
but of the apostles and prophets conjointly. The psalmist 
had sung, and the prophets had prophesied, that it should 
stand immovably firm. But why, or upon what principles, 
did those branches become broken off*? The answer is, 
" Because of unbelief they were broken off.*' 

The heathen people, who after the atonement of Christ 
became visible to men, would come into the Church much 
more rapidly than before, were very aptly called wild 
branches ; that is, " cut out of the olive-tree which is wild 
by nature." And so it is a sad chapter in the history of the 
Church, that " blindness in part is happened to Israel." 

That is a plain, simple story. It is indeed melancholy 
enough on the one hand that " some of the branches were 
broken off;" but it is cheering on the other, that others of 
a wild stock should be " grafted in." 

I cannot, therefore, agree with Dr. Olshausen, when he 
says that "the Gentiles were conceived of as a collective 
body, standing in contrast to the Jews, another collective 
body." That cannot be the way, it seems to me, because 
the Gentiles, " as a collective body," were not, and to this 
day have not, been grafted in. Indeed, the truth is, that a 
far less proportion of the Gentiles than of the Jews, as 
they then stood, have been brought into the religion and 
communion of Christ. Neither were " the Jews, as a col- 



THE ELEVENTH OF ROMANS. 233 

lective body," broken off. That supposition varies wide 
from the history, and so spoils the figure. 

But all this might be looked for, perhaps, from a man 
who held that " the Gentile world, as such, was destined by 
God's decree to be — instead of the Jews — the support and 
transmitter of the divinely-appointed ordinances of salva- 
tion.'' 

On the contrary, I do not believe that God is any 
respecter of persons ; I do not read that he saves men by 
nations ; I cannot see that he has decreed the English peo- 
ple, or the Americans, or the Germans, or any other people, 
" as a collective body," to be " instead " of any other peo- 
ple, " the support and transmitter of the divinely-appointed 
ordinances of salvation." He receives men only because 
of their fidelity and faith, personally and individually, and 
discards them in like manner, only " because of unbelief," 
and for no other reason. 

The same thing said by the Saviour then, about the tw^o 
parties — the Church and the world — ^with the same figure 
representing them, might be said now. I see nothing new 
or strange about it. The Church and the world ahvays 
sustain the same relation, and God always sustains the same 
relation to both. There are, in God's administration of the 
affairs of men, no such special rules and commands of mo- 
mentary application, and particular, exclusive expediency, 
as the fancy of some theologians sometimes causes them to 
discover. Such things might do for a military commander, 
or freakish, petulant sovereign, who did not know his own 
mind long at a time, and whose views and purposes were 
wrapped up in the changing and adventitious condition of 
nations and peoples; but the plans and purposes of the 
Almighty work on a higher, a more comprehensive and 
impartial scale. 

Doctor Olshausen, after torturing the text through sev- 



234 THE OLIVE-TREES OP 

eral pages of special pleading, makes out an administrative 
programme which he himself would be compelled to disap- 
prove if he had been exercising the powers of a pope, as he 
seems to regard the work and offices of the Saviour. He 
seems to forget that the Saviour was God, administering the 
moral discipline of mankind, as he had been all the while 
doing for at least four or five thousand years ; and so he 
seems to fancy the Saviour acting as a sort of moderator in 
some neighborhood quarrel, and saying to these, " They are 
called,^' and to those, " They are rejected^ Of the figure of 
the two olive-trees he finds that " there is an obscurity as to 
their connection with the course of the reasoning." He 
considers it so difficult to understand, that it requires very 
much of the most sapient untangling at the hands of the 
most astute doctors. 

And just so will there be " obscurity " and mystification 
with any one who will have a telescope to examine an object 
which lies in plain view, a foot from him. 

And yet, such views as these, from the more recent writers, 
may not, after all, excite so much wonder, seeing they submit 
themselves to the teachings of such strange and extrava- 
gant teachers as Macknight, and others that might be 
named, an age or two ago. 

And now, that remark may be considered extravagant, 
and even presumptuous withal. Well, we can soon try it. 

Let us read from Macknight on Rom. xi. 11, and let us 
read slowly and carefully: "The rejection of the Jews, 
the destruction of their Church, the abrogation of their 
law, and the driving of them out of Canaan — all com- 
prehended in the expression, their fall, were absolutely 
necessary to the Gentiles obtaining the knowledge and 
means of salvation. For first, the worship of God in the 
Jewish Church, being confined to Jerusalem, it was impos- 
sible for the whole Gentile world to find the knowledge and 



THE ELEVENTH OF ROMANS. 235 

means of salvation in the Jewish Church ; and yet, while 
that Church subsisted, no other Church could be intro- 
duced." 

Now, I ask the reader to pause long enough to settle these 
several thoughts well in his mind. 

Here it is positively stated, as an historic fact, as though it 
were a well-settled matter, that " the worship of God in the 
Jewish Church was confined to Jerusalem ; and secondly, it is 
strangely and unnaturally concluded, that, to correct that 
error, the rejection of the Jews, the destruction of their Church, 
the abrogation of their laws, and the driving of them out of 
Canaan, were absolutely necessary. 

We will first look into the mere historic question about 
the worship of God in the Jewish Church being confined to 
the city of Jerusalem, 

I confess my amazement. I stand appalled on reading 
such a statement from Dr. James Macknight. If he had 
stated that such worship was confined to the bottom of the 
Dead Sea, it would have been more ridiculous, but no more 
untrue than it is ; and it is so notoriously untrue that every- 
body must know it. It would be just as proper now to say 
that the worship of God in the United States is confined to 
Washington City. I have alluded to this matter before, 
and may encounter it again ; and it had as well be settled 
here, with Macknight. 

I state that it is not only true, but notorious to all men 
of some moderate reading, that at the time spoken of, " the 
worship of God in the Jewish Church " was free, popular, 
unrestricted, and unconfined to any locality ; but was actu- 
ally dotted all over the countiy, in perhaps almost every 
neighborhood, wherever the convenience of a few Church- 
members demanded. This was not only the case through- 
X)ut Palestine, but almost all over the known world ; that is, 
wherever there were any Jews. 



236 THE OLIVE-TREES OF 

And am I required to prove a thing so notorious ? It 
seems so. The proof lies in fifty places all around me. Let 
the uninformed reader open any biblical dictionary, or any 
other book treating of the Church in those ages, and it is 
almost the first thing he will see. I doubt not it could be 
readily proved by Machiight on the Epistles, if one were to 
spend a few minutes in looking it up. 

In Homers Introduction, Vol. II., p. 103, it is fully ex- 
plained that the Jews had synagogues — as their churches 
were called — everywhere, and worshiped in them every 
Sabbath, as we do now. " In the time of the Maccabees, 
synagogues became so frequent that they were to be found 
in almost every place in Judea ; but the Jews were not per- 
mitted to build one in a town, unless there were ten persons 
of leisure in it," etc., etc. That latter regulation seems to 
have been a rule of one of the Maccabees, two hundred 
years or so before Christ ; and it is about the only confine- 
ment I remember in the premises. Watson and every- 
body else explain that the Jews always, at least since the 
captivity, worshiped everywhere in synagogues on the Sab- 
bath-day. 

And in the New Testament we read of synagogues, and 
the regular Sabbath-day worship everywhere ; and so I say 
I do not know what Dr. Macknight means. He certainly 
cannot mean that "the worship of God in the Jewish 
Church was confined to Jerusalem " — that is out of the 
question. 

And moreover, two of the three denominational Churches 
into which the Jewish Church was divided, viz., the Sama- 
ritan and Hellenistic, most probably never worshiped at 
Jerusalem at all : their places of offering sacrifice, of stated 
festive worship, etc., were respectively at Mount Gerizim and 
Heliopolis. 

And then, suppose there had been some disadvantageous 



THE ELEVENTH OF ROMANS. 237 

error as to some rules of worship in the Church at that 
time — was it " absolutely necessary/' in order to correct it, 
that the Church be " destroyed '' utterly ? That is strange 
reasoning. If such a restriction had existed, w^ould it not 
have been removed by removing it ? There are errors in the 
Church now, and ever have been ; and they — some of them 
■ — sometimes get corrected without destroying the Church 
utterly and abrogating its laws. 

It is logically absurd, and practically ridiculous, to sup- 
pose that the existence of errors in the Church at the time 
of Christ, or at any other time, rendered the destruction of 
the Church "absolutely necessary," or even contingently 
necessary, in order to " the Gentiles obtaining the knowl- 
edge and means of salvation." The Gentiles, from the days 
Gentiles w^ere first heard of, to this present day, never did 
find any difficulty in either getting into the Church, or in 
being religious after they got there. 

Into such extravagances as these are men led by the 
illogical and unscriptural notion of a Divine " rejection of 
the Jews," and the " calling of the Gentiles," as " collective 
bodies;" of the "destruction" of a true and scriptural 
Church, the erection of a new one, and of an old religion 
and a new one. 

With such errors, neither talent nor learning can save a 
man from very dangerous pitfalls and very awkward exhi- 
bitions. 

The wild olive grew then as it grows now, outside the 
Church, where no tree ever ought to grow. If God " rejected 
the Jews," then indeed we have a strange spectacle pre- 
sented ; indeed, we have an impossibility presented. The 
policy of the Saviour is to save all men ; and here we are 
told he rejected six or seven millions of people — an entire 
nation. That contradicts the Scriptures at the most vital 
point. 



238 OLIVE-TREES. 

Popery may curse, anathematize, and reject men by nations, 
but we are glad to know the Saviour never does it. "I 
say, then, hath God east away his people ? God forbid !'' 
That is not the way of it. " Because of unbelief they were 
broken off." 



NEW WINE IN OLD BOTTLES. 239 



CHAPTER XXXIY. 

THE PUTTING OF NEW WINE INTO OLD BOTTLES, ETC. 

In Matt. ix. 17, and repeated in Mark and Luke, the 
Saviour is inquired of complainingly, why his disciples did 
not fast oft, as those of John and the Pharisees did. And 
he replies that it is not fitting that persons should fast at a 
marriage or festival while the bridegroom is present with 
them, etc. And he then goes on farther to illustrate that 
there is fitness and appropriateness in every thing — in the 
ordinary afiairs of life as well as in religion. And he 
alludes to the joining of new and old things not suited to 
each other as the joining of new and old cloth in repairing 
a garment ; or of putting new wine into old bottles — bottles, 
or cases of skin. 

And this impracticability of joining new and old things — 
things unsuited — is understood by some to mean the impro- 
priety and unsuitableness of attempting to unite the old 
and new dispensations; that is, that the Jews of the old 
covenant should not be geared into the machinery of the 
new. 

I do not see how this interpretation can be true, because 
it would deny some very prominent facts of sacred history. 
The history is plain, that many of the Jews were so incor- 
porated into what is called the new dispensation. What is 
called the new Church, or Christian Church, consisted 



240 . THE PUTTING OF NEW WINE 

wholly and exclusively of Jews, for a period of at least 
about eight or ten years. In this time not another man, 
woman, or child, except Jews, w^as in it. And during this 
period — before the preaching to Cornelius — the Church in 
connection w4th the apostles must have numbered many 
thousands, if not millions. And also, that after this, very 
many Jews gave in their adhesion to Christ and associated 
in Church-fellowship with the apostles, is very well known. 

I think it quite probable there is an allusion here to the 
non-fellowship, not of his disciples and Pharisees, or any 
other denomination of Jews then existing, but of his follow- 
ers, and any others who denied or might deny him. Of 
course they cannot be united. Christians and infidels can- 
not now be united, though there are no living persons who 
may or might not unite with Christians. 

Dr. Clarke says : " The institutes of Christ and those of 
the Pharisees could never be brought to accord ; an attempt 
to combine the two systems would be as absurd as it would 
be destructive. The Old Covenant made way for the New, 
which was its completion and end ; but with that Old Cove- 
nant the New cannot be incorporated." 

The Doctor elsewhere tells us that he uses the terms Old 
Covenant and Old Testament as synonymous ; and so far as 
I know, they are always used to denote the same thing, viz., 
the WTitten revelation before the coming of Christ. 

It will be noticed that in the extract above the Doctor 
speaks of the " institutes of the Pharisees " in contrast wdth 
the institutes of Christ, and show^s, what is very obvious, 
that they " could never be brought to accord.'' And then, 
keeping up the same contrast and opposition of the same 
things, the " two systems," he calls them " the New Covenant " 
and the "Old ;" that is to say, the Old Covenant is the insti- 
tutes of the Pharisees, and the New is the institutes of Christ. 

This is most remarkable, indeed. The Old Covenant, or 



. INTO OLD BOTTLES, ETC. 241 

Old Testament — they mean the same thing — is the same 
as the institutes of the Pharisees : thev are svnonvmous, and 
are spoken of interchangeably ! To this point I ask par- 
ticular attention. It is this blunder which occasions the 
Doctor's frequent opposition to the Old Testament, incon- 
sistent as it may be with his teachings elsewhere, and which 
opposition — or we might as well call it repudiation, as we 
shall see in the farther prosecution of this subject — is inter- 
larded all through his ISTew Testament Commentaries. 

Who are the Pharisees, and what are their institutes? 
The Pharisees were a little literary or philosophical school, 
which figured considerably about Jerusalem, numbering a 
few thousand, and were probably not known farther back 
than one or two hundred years at most. It is not very im- 
probable that there were men then living w^ho could remem- 
ber their origin, or w^hen they came to be generally known. 
Josephus speaks of them as a very large sect ; so much so, 
that at one time they numbered "about six thousand." 
Their religious tenets were somewhat good and somewdiat 
bad. They were objectionable precisely where, and exactly 
to the extent that, they varied from the Old Covenant, or Old 
Testament, as we have it novf . Those variations from the 
Scriptures were considerable and important ; and I repeat, 
as everybody knows, that they formed entirely and exactly 
the objections that any Christians ever had against their 
tenets, their institutes, religious views, or practices. 

How, then, can Dr. Clarke class "the institutes of the 
Pharisees " and the Old Covenant as one and the same thing ? 
Did any Christian ever allege or hold any thing against the 
Old Testament ? And was any thing ever alleged against 
the Pharisees except their departures from the Old Testa- 
ment ? It is very true that the institutes of the Pharisees 
and those of Christ could not be brought to accord, as the 
Doctor says. They w^ere "two systems'' — widely diiferent 



242 THE PUTTING OF NEW WINE 

systems. But it is very far from being true that there ever 
was or is now any thing in the Old Testament which is not 
in perfect harmony with the New. Or if the Doctor still 
insists that there is, then I insist he ought to point it out 
specifically, that Christians may repudiate it. 

I hold, therefore, that this is a very great, and, in biblical 
criticism, a very damning oversight, and one that must be 
corrected. The institutes of the Pharisees were nothing, or 
next to nothing. They had foisted upon the Scriptures 
several clumsy and foolish errors, and Dr. Clarice charges 
them upon the Old Testament I 

No, sir! I object to it. The Old Testament — or Old 
Covenant, whichever word any one may prefer — ^was as good 
then as now — no better, no worse. And these objectionable 
things in the tenets of the Pharisees were then just what 
they w^ould be now. And the relation between revelation 
and religious error was the very same then as it is now. 

And when the Doctor tells us that " with the Old Covenant 
the New cannot he incorporated,^^ he tells that which must 
sound very strangely in the ear of a Christian, when looked 
at directly and carefully. And it looks particularly strange 
in an elaborate work which does incorporate each with the 
other, the common mass forming the Bible of Chris- 
tianity. 

And he also brings himself into palpable conflict with 
both the Saviour and the apostles, or at least some of them. 
In strict literary exactness it perhaps cannot be said that the 
Saviour incorporated the Old Testament with the New, be- 
cause, as a piece of literary composition, the New Testament 
was not in existence in the days of the Saviour. But that 
he incorporated the Old Testament into all his teachings, is 
too notorious to need more than a suggestion. Indeed, he 
taught nothing in or about religion that he did not draw 
directly from the Old Testament. A]:id most preeminently 



INTO OLD BOTTLES, ETC. 243 



may the same thing be said of all the apostles, so far as we 
have any information. 

I hold, therefore, that this teaching of Dr. Clarke is 
alarming. I would not, perhaps, have said so much about 
it, if it had been found here in this one place only ; but the 
general idea is interlarded almost throughout, and mars the 
beauty and very much of the strength of his entire Com- 
mentary on the New Testament, for it crops out in more 
than a hundred places. 



244 THE CONVERSION OF JEWS — 



CHAPTER XXXV. 

THE CONVERSION OF JEWS — WHAT IS MEANT BY IT? 

Conversion, as the term is technically and popularly 
used in religious language, is well understood. It applies to 
persons who have grown old enough to commit sin; and 
then they need to be converted, by the grace of God, from 
their sins to a life of holiness. And so no man can be 
saved without being converted. Whatever other questions 
might arise among Christians about conversion, I believe 
this much is acknowledged by all. 

Now, at the time of the birth of Christ and before, all 
Jews held, nominally, the true religion ; though, like 
nominal Christians now-a-days, it is to be presumed that 
but a small minority of them were truly pious. But at 
that time conversion certainly could not be applied to 
Jews as such. A Jew might or might not be pious. It 
is very certain that some of them were eminently pious. 

They needed conversion then, not because they were 
Jews, but because they were sinners — such of them as were 
unconverted sinners. But if we speak of the apostatizing 
Jews, who at a later period renounced their fundamental 
religious faith by denying the Christ they formerly pro- 
fessed, then we speak of a very different people. But their 
case is not now under consideration. 

The conversion of Jewish persons is mentioned in several 



WHAT IS MEANT BY IT? 245 

places in the New Testament — Matt. xiii. 15, xviii. 3, 
Mark iv. 12, Luke xxii. 32, John xii. 40, Acts xxviii. 
27, iii. 19, James v. 19, etc. In these and all other 
similar cases, the doctrine is not conversion from one 
religious system to another ; it is a conversion to the true 
religion — not from Judaism, but to Judaism. That is, a 
Jevr who misunderstood his own religion, or from any cause 
did not conform to it — a thing as possible then as now — 
needed conversion to a knowledge and experience of his 
own faith. A Jew of those days did not need to change 
his religion, but to conform to it 

But in some of the modern misteachings of theology, we 
are instructed in a different kind of conversion. It is sup- 
posed that a Jew needed conversion because he was a Jew. 

Saul of Tarsus was a wicked, unconverted man, though 
a zealous, hot-headed Churchman. He needed conversion 
as much three or five years before the death of Christ, as 
he did three years afterward ; though by the latter period 
he had waxed strongly in semi -infidelity. At this latter 
period he was converted — converted to the same religion he 
ought to have been converted to ten years before. 

The doctrine of what, in theological language, is called 
conversion y is very plainly set forth in Acts xxvi. 18. In 
this sense, of course all Jews need conversion, not because 
they are Jews, but because they are sinners. Jews, as such, 
needed no conversion. If they had a pious faith in Christ, 
either prospective or retrospective, they had the Christian 
religion. Beyond this no man can go, except to " grow " 
in it. 

Dr. Kevin, in his Biblical Antiquities, p. 254, speaks of 
Christians " who had been Jews." And did they cease to 
be Jews ? "What a glaring error ! And yet how currently 
it is received ! St. Paul did not cease to be a Jew — so he 
tells us. 



246 THE CONVERSION OF JEWS — 

Dr. George Smith, in his Elements of Divinity, p. 31, 
says the books of the New Testament prove that the " writers 
of them were what they professed to be — Jews converted to 
Christianity." Verily they were ; and so were the writers 
of the books of the Old Testament They were all written 
by Jews, and they were all converted men. But nobody was 
"converted" in the sense in which the learned author 
speaks. That is a solecism and a contradiction. Whether 
the writers of the New Testament were converted before or 
after their personal acquaintance with Christ, or before or 
after their knowledge of him personally^ is a question the 
author now before us cannot answer. 

Macknight speaks (Epis., p. 721,) of Ananias "before 
his conversion to Christianity " as being held in high repute 
among the Jews. Acts xxii. 12. This kind of teaching 
misleads the student in Christianity on a very important 
point in theology. I am well aware that this learned and 
very valuable theologian is by no means alone in this 
error, but his error is none the less, but indeed the greater, 
for all this. 

There is and can be no such conversion as is here alluded 
to. Let us read : "And one Ananias, a devout man accord- 
ing to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which 
dwelt there, came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, 
Brother Saul, receive thy sight," etc. 

This was at Damascus. It is commonly said that Paul 
was converted on his ivay to Damascus. It was rather at 
Damascus, just before entering the city. Ananias is pre- 
sumed to have been a citizen of Damascus, which was a 
large city away beyond the borders of Palestine, some 
hundred miles from Jerusalem, the capital of Syria. Ana- 
nias was then a pious. Christian man. When he was con- 
verted — L e., became religious — we have no information. I 
grant it might have been one year before this, or it might, 



WHAT IS MEANT BY IT ? 247 

with equal propriety in guessing, have been twenty or fifty 
years before. He salutes Paul very familiarly, and in 
good Christian style; and by his preternatural or provi- 
dential selection for the part we see him act, we are war- 
ranted in presuming that he was a man of years and of 
substantial and exemplary piety. 

But Dr. Macknight supposes and teaches that he was a 
pious man according to Old Testament piety — the law — and 
was afterward " converted to Christianity,^^ No such con- 
version as this is knov/n to theology. Ananias, like all 
other men, needed to be converted to practical religion, 
and like all other men — unless he backslid — he needed 
no other conversion. "A devout man'' — meaning a pious 
man — cannot be converted, for that expression informs us 
he was already converted. But Macknight strangely sup- 
poses that Ananias was a devout man before he was con- 
verted, or became pious. 

The term " devout," in Acts x. 2, must be understood to 
conform to this rule, or otherwise we make St. Luke teach 
that which is palpably erroneous. But in this case, Luke 
is evidently not intending to say that Cornelius was a 
converted man; for if so, then he was a Christian, and 
then the whole notice of him falls to the ground. The 
first few verses of the tenth of Acts evidently represent 
the estimate in which Cornelius was generally held. 

Whatever may have been the state of theological knowl- 
edge, either general or particular, in any ages of the 
world, it cannot for a moment be held that before Christ 
persons were converted, half-way, to a low state of piety, 
and that full conversion is confined exclusively to the 
period subsequent. 



248 THE ESSENTIAL CHRISTOLOGY 



CHAPTER XXXYI. 

THE ESSENTIAL CHRISTOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

The Old Testament contains a complete system of religion 
of some sort. It is Christianity, or it is some religious 
system different from it. Is there any religion in it that is 
not Christian ? And is there any thing essentially Christian 
that is not in it ? 

Dr. John Dick teaches a good deal about two different 
dispensations — the old one which expired, and the new and 
better one which took its place; that one of .the two great 
laws of religion of the former was " abrogated " when the 
" Christian religion " succeeded " the religion of the Jews." 

In his Theology — generally an able and excellent work — 
p. 77, he tells us that, " The apostles were sent forth to erect 
a Church distinct from that of the Jews, observing new ordi- 
nances, and governed by new laws." • 

And on page 71 he opens his fourteenth lecture as fol- 
lows : "About one hundred years ago a book was published 
in England, by the celebrated Dr. Tindal, bearing the title, 
Christianity as old as the Creation^ the object of which was 
to show that the gospel is a republication of the law of 
nature, and that there neither is nor can be any revelation 
distinct from what he calls the internal revelation of that 
law in the hearts of all mankind. In opposition to this 
bold and impious assertion, we maintain with President 



OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 249 

Forbes, in his Thoughts Concerning Religion, Natural and 
Revealed, that Christianity is very near as old as the crea- 
tion. We deny that it was the primary religion of man- 
kind, but we are ready to prove that only a very short time 
elapsed before it became their religion ; or, in other w^ords, 
that subsequently the same system of religion which we at 
present profess, was made known to our first parents, and 
has been received and acted upon by the people of God in 
every subsequent age. 

^' We are accustomed to give the designation of Christi- 
anity to the religion which was published to the w^orld 
about eighteen hundred years ago, by our blessed Saviour 
and his apostles, and thus to distinguish it from preceding 
revelations ; but our design is not to signify that it was a 
new religion. The Church is built upon the foundation of 
the apostles and prophe^, holds the truths taught by both, 
and acknowledges as her Head the same Divine Redeemer, 
who is the subject of their entire testimony." 

In this latter quotation, which I take to be a flat contra- 
diction of the quotation on page 77, the author evidently 
does himself injustice by using the word published. This is 
generally used to mean the first promulgation of something. 
To publish, in the ordinary sense, is to make known that 
which before was private or unknown. Our Saviour, 
according to the above statement — which is undoubtedly 
true, mth this single exception — -published religion only in 
the sense that he taught and explained it. But he did not 
teach any new religious principle or doctrine — any thing 
before unpublished. In that sense — which is not a very 
good use of the word publish, in that place — all ministers, 
before and since his day, may be said to publish Christianity. 

Christianity began, not at the time of the creation, but, as 
Dr. Dick says, shortly after. The same system of religion 
which we now profess, was 7nadc hnovm to our first parents, 



250 THE ESSENTIAL CHRISTOLOGY 

and has been received and acted upon by the people of God 
ever since. 

In the order of Providence, our Saviour did not make his 
personal appearance at first, but along at a certain time in 
the history of the Church ; thus throwing part of the 
Church before, and part after, that event. This rendered it 
naturally necessary, as previously explained, that the same 
acts of worship, or acts of the same meaning — in order to 
be the same in meaning — should be different in the external 
mode of performance, and in that alone, in the tw^o periods. 
No other changes than such as these w^ere called for or neces- 
sary at the Christian era. Religion and Church continued 
precisely the same. 

The Old Testament contains, full and complete, the system 
of religion we call Christianity ; but like any other system 
of truth comprising belief and practice, it was, and with 
the New added, still is, susceptible of farther elaboration — 
of being more fully taught. The New" Testament elabo- 
rates the Old, without change. 

That the New Testament writers regarded the Old Testa- 
ment as comprising a complete system of Christianity, is a 
proposition very easily proved. Indeed, they did not pre- 
tend to teach any doctrine, tenet, or truth, w^hich they were 
not ready to prove by the then existing Scriptures. If they 
preached a gospel, they drew it from the Old Testament, 
and proved every part of it thereby. They not only 
preached no other gospel than that contained in the Old 
Testament, but they repudiated every thing else, declaring 
every addition to it to be false. 

I will quote a few passages ; " Did ye never read in the 
Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same 
is become the head of the corner " ? etc.. Matt. xxi. 42. Here 
the appeal is made to Ps. cxviii. 22, and Isa. liii. 7. 

" I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye 



OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 251 

took me not ; but the Scriptures must be fulfilled." Mark 
xiv. 49, Ps. xxii. 6. 

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he ex- 
pounded unto them, in all the Scriptures, the things con- 
cerning himself." Luke xxiv. 27. Dr. Clarke says, What 
a sermon this must have been ! 

" Then opened he their understanding, that they might 
understand the Scriptures," etc.— Luke xxiv. 45 ; and, "Thus 
it is written, (in the Scriptures,) and thus it behooved Christ 
to suffer," etc. 

"Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have 
eternal life ; and they are they which testify of me." John 
V. 39. This is read in the indicative, rather than the imper- 
ative mood. In either case, however, they were pointed to that 
Vvhich was written in the Old Testament for their religion. 

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and 
three Sabbath-days reasoned out of the Scriptures." Acts 
xvii. 2. 

" These were more noble than those of Thessalonica, in 
that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and 
searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were 
so." Acts xvii. 11. 

" For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, 
showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ." Acts 
xviii. 28. 

1 Cor. XV. 3, shows that the death of Christ, in all those 
things which a Christian is required to believe, was accord- 
ing to the Scriptures ; also, Acts x. 43, xviii. 38. 

In Luke xvi. 29-31, it is stated, in the most powerful 
forms of language, that a man who is not saved in exact 
pursuance of the Old Testament, cannot by possibility be 
saved at all. 

Prov. vi. 23, and 2 Peter i. 19, show that the Old Testa- 
ment is an unerring guide to all men. 



252 THE ESSENTIAL CHRISTOLOOY 

The Old Testament is fully sufficient to make one " wise 
unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." 
2 Tim. iii. 15. 

" If any man sjDeak, ( preach, ) let him do it as the oracles 
of God/' (the Old Testament.) 1 Peter iv. 11. 

Holiness in Christians is obedience to the Old Testament 
teachings. 1 Peter i. 16. They contain all the promises 
of the gospel, Eom. i. 2 ; they reveal the laws, statutes, 
and judgments of God, Deut. iv. 5-14, Ex. xxiv. 3,4; 
they testify of Christ, John v. 39, Acts x. 43, 1 Cor. 
XV. 3 ; they are full and sufficient for all religious ends and 
purposes, Luke xvi. 29-31 ; they are profitable for both doc- 
trine and practice ; they were written for our instruction, 
Rom. XV. 4 ; they are not to be added to, nor is aught to be 
taken from them, Deut. iv. 2, xiii. 32 ; they work effectually 
in all who believe, 1 Thess. ii. 13 ; Christ enables us to un- 
derstand them, Luke xxiv. 45 ; the Holy Ghost enables us 
to understand them, John xvi. 13, 1 Cor. ii. 10-14; every 
thing must be tried by them, Isa. viii. 2D, Acts xvii. 
11 ; they are designed for the regeneration of mankind, 
James i. 18, 1 Peter i. 23 ; for converting the soul and 
for making wise the simple, Ps. xix. 7 ; for sanctifying the 
soul, John xvii. 17, Eph. v. 26; for producing Christian 
hope, Ps. cxix. 49, Rom. xv. 4; obedience, Deut. xvii. 
19, 20 ; for cleansing the heart, John xv. 3, Eph. v. 
26 ; for promoting growth in grace, 1 Peter ii. 2 ; they are 
the standard of teaching, 1 Peter iv. 11 ; and are to be 
appealed to in all cases, 1 Cor. i. 31, 1 Peter i. 16. 

Thus I have examined about two hundred passages — and I 
know not how many more there are — Avhich prove that there 
is no doctrine nor teaching known to revealed religion which 
is not to be drawn directly from the Old Testament. St. Paul 
expressly declares that he preaches nothing else, and he 
instincts Timothy to follow the same rule. It is well known 



01^ THE OLD TESTAMENT. 253 

that the preaching or adhering to doctrines not found in 
the Jewish Scriptures constituted the sum of the loud com- 
plaints against St. Paul ; and hence his efforts, all through 
his writings, to support himself by what is written, 

" For the hope of Israel/' the apostle exclaims, " I am 
bound with this chain/' His confinement was — if he is to 
be credited — for the ancient faith of the Church, and not 
for any ^'new'^ views, tenets, or practices. And again: 
"And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the 
promise made of God unto our fathers ; unto which promise 
our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope 
to come. For which hope's sake, King Agrippa, I am 
accused of the Jew^s." And the Epistle to the Hebrews 
entire, is one solid argument refuting the charges against 
its author and his associates, that they had imbibed new 
religious tenets. From beginning to end it contends for the 
specific and identical oneness of the Christianity of the 
apostles with the Judaism of their fathers and the ancient 
Church. 

At the time of Christ, and for many years previously, the 
Church possessed its Bible — its body of Scripture-books. 
These were held in the highest veneration. No people ever 
lived who held their sacred books in greater sacredness than 
did the Jews, at and before the coming of Christ. But 
there being no printing, the books all being written with the 
pen, they were few in number, and only in the hands of the 
learned. Very few of the people could read ; indeed, read- 
iiig and writing was a profession aspired to by only a very 
few. A knoY>dedge of what the Scriptures contained was 
had by the people only through the Church-readings on the 
Sabbath. So the liability to misconstrue the Scriptures was 
much greater then than now. 

The great complaints against the apostles were that they 
preached things new — things not taught in Scripture, and, 



254 CHRISTOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

therefore, false. To have done this, would have been as 
great an offense against religion then as now ; and if the 
apostles or anybody else had taught and preached things 
not taught in the Scriptures, the complaints against them 
would have been just. But they constantly denied the 
charges, and contended that they were made only by those 
who did not understand the Scriptures ; that they taught 
exactly what the Old Testament taught, and nothing — 
nothing beyond. And w^hen we come to examine what they 
did teach, and compare their teachings with the Old Testa- 
ment, we find that they did not travel one inch beyond 
them. They explained and elaborated, but they dared not — 
nor did they — add to them one new idea. There is not to- 
day a truth, nor doctrine, nor idea pertaining to Christi- 
anity, in any authentic form, which is not contained, in 
some form, in the Old Testament. 

And yet, how often, and in how many forms of language, 
do we see it stated that the Christian religion — meaning, 
and sometimes explaining, it to be a " new religion " — was 
set up and taught for the first time by our Saviour, and the 
apostles and evangelists ! And how often do we see " the 
Christian religion '' and " the Jewish religion," in these ex- 
press terms, held up in contrast, and "contrasted" with 
each other ! These teachings, I venture strongly to suggest, 
ought to abate, because there is no Christian religion which 
contrasts with, or is even different from, the religion of the 
Old Testament. 

The Christology of the Old Testament is as complete, 
though not as elaborate, as is that of the New. 



WHAT IS GOSPEL? 255 



CHAPTER XXXYII. 

WHAT IS GOSPEL? 

A LITTLE careful attention to the very simple and 
natural manner in which words generally acquire their 
meaning, will assist us in the inquiry. 

The linguists tell us that gospel is very nearly, if not 
quite synonymous, with good neivs, or valuable intelligence, 
a good or joyftd message. The word, however, as we write 
it, is of recent origin. It was formerly written god-spel, 
which meant good spell, or good history, or good things 
related, or good speech. Originally, it did not include nor 
suggest any religious or sacred ideas or associations. 

When Christ made his personal appearance in the world, 
those who regarded him as truly the long looked-for Mes- 
siah, though they knew he did not then become their 
Saviour, nevertheless looked upon his coming as a great 
and joyous occasion to the Church ; and so his coming 
was gospel, or as these and those heard of the fact, it was 
gospel to them. That is to say, the word came to be so 
used. The meaning of a word is the meaning of the per- 
son who uses it. 

The word, like most other descriptive nouns, is now used 
to mean several different and distinct things; and like 
thousands of similar words, we cannot know what is meant 
by it, until we see the association in which it is placed. 



256 WHAT IS GOSPEL? 

First, and most generally, it is used to mean the doctrine 
of God^s grace — that he ^vill pardon sinners through the 
intervention of Christ. This is the sense in which it is used 
in Matt. xi. 5, Mark xvi. 15, and many other places. In 
this sense it has no particular reference to the Christian 
era, to the personal coming of Christ, nor to any thing 
immediately connected with his human history. This offer 
of pardon by God's grace w^as made not in the days of the 
apostles, but in the days of Adam. It does not exclusively 
pertain to the post-Messianic period, but to the world of 
mankind generally ; and so in this, by far the most com- 
mon use made of the w^ord, the good news w^as by no 
means first heard in the days of Christ's humanity, but 
thousands of years previously. 

Secondly. The word is used sometimes to mean either one, 
or in the plural, all of the four evangelical histories of our 
Lord's personal life — those written by Matthew, Mark, 
Luke, and John. This is an accommodated, not a pri- 
mary use of the word. The primary idea which was probably 
attached to the word or words from which ours is derived, 
viz., the good news that Christ has come, has long since been 
lost sight of, if indeed it was ever so used to any considera- 
ble extent. The word is not now so used in English speech. 

By the gospel is usually meant the divinely -revealed 
religion which is taught in the Bible. A minister is under- 
stood to preach the gospel as much when his subject is 
found in the Old Testament as in the New. Gospel, in 
this most common and ordinary use of the word, pertains 
as much to one part of Scripture as another — no more 
to Luke or John than to Genesis, Job, Isaiah, or Reve- 
lation. The same dispensation, the same teaching of faith 
in Christ, the same rules of religion and conditions of 
salvation, are found in common in all the books of the 
Old and Kew Testaments. 



WHAT IS GOSPEL? 257 

But it is apparent there must be a very great difference, 
in some respects, in the ante and post -Messianic periods 
of the Church. In the former, no man had seen the Sa- 
viour ; not because he did not exist, surely, but because he 
had not yet made himself visible to mortal eyes. And it 
must have been a matter of great anxiety and intense solici- 
tude with the pious, that the Christ, their Saviour, would, 
according to his promise, make himself visible to their 
senses. The realization of this anxiety could not fail to 
be most glorious gospel — welcome, cheering intelligence 
to the pious who lived in that age. But all this had 
nothing to do with doctrines of religion. 

The gospel, therefore, does not indicate any change, 
improvement, or new method of dispensing grace, or 
in offering salvation to the world. Christ's teaching was 
divine revelation, but is not to be understood thereby that 
the gospel was then first revealed ; for Moses and the pro- 
phets revealed the whole of it in substance, though much 
additional light is thro^vn upon the picture by him. He 
greatly illuminated, enforced, explained, the gospel already 
revealed. The very personal coming of Christ rendered 
this additional light practicable. God's free, pardoning 
grace was as freely offered before as after Christ's coming ; 
but now man is placed in a better and more favorable 
condition to receive it. The coming of Christ did not, 
therefore, work any legal change in the status of God or 
man, nor change their relation ; yet, by the influx of more 
light, and the ability to see that which before could only 
be anticipated, man with one eye nov/ could discern what 
would have required two previously. 

The gospel is not, therefore, a system of religion con- 

tradistinguishable from, a system previously in vogue; 

neither does it change, add to, nor take from that system, 

but is the same so far as concerns all religious doctrines. 

9 



258 WHAT IS GOSPEL? 

The minister before Christ's coming preached the gospel 
precisely as the minister now does, supposing them both 
to understand the Scriptures. The one, in directing his 
hearers to a sensible or palpable knowledge of Christ, 
pointed them forward, while the other points them back- 
ward. 

It is Christ, and not his coming, which forms the great 
central idea of religion. The terms before Christ, and after 
Christ, are not to be understood literally. The meaning 
is, before, and after Christ did a certain thing. Christ 
has existed as our Saviour, fulfilling all the functions 
thereof, at least since the time of the paradisical expul- 
sion, if not from all eternity; and since the expulsion, 
or about that time, he has certainly not changed his rela- 
tion nor his attitude to mankind. 

Dr. John Dick — Theo., p. 449 — in defining gospel, says, 
" First, it signifies the history of Christ." This is certainly 
not its primary, but its secondary and merely accommo- 
dated use. But he is in a far greater error when he says, 
"Secondly. The gospel signifies the Christian revelation, 
or system of doctrines, ordinances, and laws which Jesus 
Christ has delivered to us, and which is justly called good 
news." 

By the words, " which Jesus Christ has delivered to us," 
he is understood to mean, things delivered for the first time 
eighteen hundred years ago, in the time of the Saviour's 
fleshly appearance. 

The mistake of the learned author is, therefore, no less 
than this : that Jesus Christ did not so deliver to us any 
new revelation, nor system of doctrines, ordinances, or 
laws of religion, which were not substantially already de- 
livered in the Old Testament Scriptures by the same divine 
authority. 

I ask the Doctor, what ." system of doctrines, ordinances, 



WHAT IS GOSPEL? 259 

and laws " did Christ deliver to us anew, and for the first 
time? I know it is a very fashionable way of writing 
and speaking. But I ask to be imformed of one doctrine, 
of one ordinance, of one law of religion, which Christ de- 
livered to us anew, and for the first time. He tells us 
that Christ delivered to us our entire system of new — he 
evidently means new — "doctrines, ordinances, and laws." 
And I contend that he not only did not deliver to us a 
new code, but that he did not deliver to us one new statute, 
one new doctrine, ordinance, or law pertaining either to 
religion, to ethics, or to ecclesiastical manners, save some 
outward forms, where the old forms could not rationally 
continue. And I am unwilling to receive for an answer 
that, " of course, he delivered the Christian religion to us." 
He delivered the Christian religion to us in the Old Testa- 
ment, through Moses and the prophets, but I deny that 
he delivered to us any part of it, for the first time, in 
the New, and I ask for specification. 

The Doctor himself says — p. 48 — that "our Saviour 
appealed to them (the Old Testament books) as contain- 
ing the words of eternal life, and bearing testimony to 
him ; and gave his sanction to them all." Very well, then : 
will any one claim that a subsequent revelation contains 
something more than testimony to Christ, and the words 
of eternal life ? Is the gospel something else, or something 
more, than the icords of eternal life through Christ f 

Again, page 449, the Doctor tells us, "The gospel sig- 
nifies the revelation of the grace and mercy of God to 
sinners, or the joyful tidings of salvation through Christ." 
That is exactly right, and is exactly, almost verbatim, 
what he says the Old Testament contains. 

In Heb. iv. 2, and Gal. iii. 8, and some other places, the 
gospel is spoken of with special reference to the Old Testa- 
ment. For the most part, it is spoken of with general refer- 



260 WHAT IS GOSPEL? 

ence to the Old Testament, or to the Old and New indis- 
criminately. In Luke ii. 10, 11, it is spoken of with 
special reference to the coming of Christ. In Isa. xl. 8, 
xli. 27, lii. 7, Luke ii. 10, 11, it is connected with the Old 
Testament. 

In Mark i. 14, 15, and elsewhere, the Saviour himself 
is represented as preaching the gospel of the kingdom of 
God. Now what ^\2iS> it that the Saviour thus preached? 
He did not preach his coming. That w^e are elsewhere told 
he did not 2^'^each ; that is, he did not openly and publicly 
avow it. He intimated it privately, and left it to be 
inferred. Neither did he preach the history as written 
by the evangelists, for this was not then written, neither 
had the things therein stated transpired. We are then shut 
up to the conclusion that he preached the religion which 
God has revealed to mankind. He preached the conditions 
of salvation ; he preached the then existing Bible ; and he 
preached these things as never man spake before nor since. 
The way we know that he did not then, or at any other 
time, preach any thing different from any and all the 
doctrines of religion in the Old Testament is, that we see 
him repeatedly refer to and recognize those Scriptures. 
' Henderson's Buck's Dictionary defines gospel exactly 
right : " The revelation of the grace of God to fallen man 
through a Mediator." That gospel was first made known 
to Adam, and more fully through succeeding patriarchs 
and prophets, and then far, far more fully than it could 
have been made known before, when God himself clothed 
the Divinity in man's form, and walked on the earth, 
and talked with men in order, more fully than it could 
be otherwise done, to demonstrate his grace, and make 
salvation palpable. 



NEW TESTAMENT ELABORATES THE OLD. 261 



CHAPTER XXXVIII. 

THE NEW TESTAMENT ELABORATES THE OLD. 

The doctrines or conditions of religion are all contained 
in very small portions of the Scriptures. They are inter- 
mingled all through them, and are repeated many times, in 
many different places, and in a great variety of form and 
mode of expression. They are not only stated didactically, 
but are illustrated, amplified, and restated, until the powers 
of language seem almost exhausted in their explanation 
and enforcement. These amplifying and illustrative teach- 
ings are found much more plentiful in the iSTew Testament 
than the Old ; the latter being — much of it — taken up with 
such historic, biographic, incidental, and prophetic teaching 
as seems necessary to form a rational system. Frequently 
you may find a doctrine stated and explained a hundred 
times, perhaps, in the New Testament, when the same thing 
may not be set forth with much plainness more than four or 
five times in the Old. 

A very large proportion of the volume of the New Tes- 
tament is of this character. Its mere didactic teaching is 
small. It is an inspired expansion, explanation, illustra- 
tion, elaboration, and enforcement of the didactic precepts 
found in the Old, and repeated in the New. 

And also, large portions of the Old Testament bear this 
same relation to other portions ; and just so, likewise, do 
portions of the New elaborate other portions. 



262 THE NEW TESTAMENT 

Besides these elaborations of doctrines and precepts 
already taught in the Old Testament, there is nothing in 
the New, except such things — relating; not to Christ, as the 
Saviour, nor to the conditions of salvation, but to his per- 
sonal advent — as could not, in the nature of things, be in 
the Old. The things in the New Testament and not in the 
Old, are of an entirely different nature from what is often- 
times supposed. 

There is a large class of theological teaching oftentimes 
met with in the pulpit and elsewhere, which attributes to 
the Saviour the teaching of many of the most valuable doc- 
trines of religion, leaving the impression that he then 
taught them for the first time ; whereas, his teaching only 
elaborated and confirmed that which had been all along 
known and taught. 

Doctor Timothy Dwight runs into this error in explain- 
ing Christ's doctrines. Theology, Vol. II., p. 93, in enumer- 
ating " The things which he taughtj'' says that — 

^'First He taught mankind that the heart is the seat of 
all virtue and vice, or, in Scripture language, of holiness 
and sin.'' And 

"Secondly. Christ taught mankind that virtue consists 
solely in loving God with all the heart, and our neighbor as 
ourselves." And p. 95 — 

" Thirdly, Christ taught that the meek and lowly virtues, 
as they are called, or, in other words, exercises of virtue, are 
superior in their excellency to any others. 

''Fourthly. Christ, in the same complete manner, taught 
the way in which fallen beings may again become virtuous 
and happy." 

It is very certain that Christ taught all these things ; but 
it is as certain that they were all previously taught in the 
Scriptures. He taught what was already taught in the 
revealed w^ord of God, but nothing more ; he taught none 



ELABORATES THE OLD. 263 

of these things as new things, but explained all the while, 
as he went along, that they were old things previously- 
taught, and that he was only elaborating and enforcing the 
doctrines. 

But the Doctor, keeping up the idea of original action 
on the part of Christ, runs into what I consider a very great 
error, when he says, 

'^ Fifthly, Christ established his Church in a new form, 
appointed in it new ministers, constituted a new discipline, 
and directed anew the peculiar duties of both its officers 
and members." 

I am here compelled to join issue directly with the 
Doctor, and deny utterly the truth of each and all of these 
historic facts. -He did none of these things. In this I am 
aware I meet a very popular error, in which Dr. Dwight is 
but a common participant ; but I appeal to the Scriptures, 
and aver that there is not, either in the Old that he would, 
nor in the New that he did, give any sort of new form to the 
Church ; that he did appoint in it new — that is, a new hind 
of ministers ; or that he would or did give it a new disci- 
pline, or direct anew the peculiar duties of either its officers 
or members. I deny that he changed at all, either the 
religion or the worship of the Church, as they w^ere both 
already, long previously, established by divine recognition 
and custom. Such errors as he saw among the people, or 
anticipated, in departing from the religion and discipline of 
the Church, as written in the Scriptures, he corrected ; but 
in every thing he did, he enforced, confirmed, established, 
and honored, every thing written which made up the Jewish 
Church and its religion. 

I hold up the Scriptures, and show that in all the contro- 
versies of those times, there w^as no dispute or difference 
about the Church, its form, its ministers, or its discipline, 
I do not see in them the least intimation that, in these things, 



264 THE NEW TESTAMENT 

the Saviour or tlie apostles saw any thing that needed mod- 
ification or change. The controversies of those times 
related to other matters entirely. First. They related to 
one single question in religion — a question which necessarily 
arose at this particular time, viz., whether Jesus was or was 
not the Christ ; and secondly — as all ministers have always 
done, or ought always to do — he corrected the morals of 
the Church, without introducing any new rules of morals. 
And, recognizing himself as Christ, he of course taught the 
discontinuance of such external ceremonies as pointed for- 
ward to Christ's appearance. These are not only the only 
alterations he " appointed/' but they are the only notable 
or important changes that occurred about this time. As 
THE Church did not need any changes, in the view of the 
Saviour, none were made. Most assuredly this is true, if 
there be any truth or naturalness in scriptural revelation. 
A new Church was not only a superfluity — it was, as already 
explained, an impossibility. 

There were no two Churches among Jew^s and Christians 
of those times, with this exception and in this sense : The 
rejecting Jews of course apostatized from the true religion — 
to reject Christ is to apostatize from true religion — and this, 
of course, naturally caused them to leave the Church. Their 
abandonment of their religion necessitated a discontinuance 
of their religious association with their former fellows ; and 
so theirs became a new Church — it might be called a 
Church — with a totally false religion, like the Mormon 
Church. They did not adopt any new rules. Generally, 
outward things continued about the same with both the true 
and the false Jews. A change in religion is not likely to 
occasion, much less does it necessitate, any considerable 
changes in outward Church service ; and indeed, down to 
this day, there is not much change in the outward vrorking 
of these two Churches; not much more, if any, than be- 



ELABORATES THE OLD. 265 

tween some branches of tlie Christian Church now. See 
the Greek, Eomish, and various Protestant Churches. 

The Saviour complained of the unwilling or refractory 
Jews, because they refused to coiitiniie in their own Churchy 
according to its divinely-written religion ; but the formation 
of another Church, in a new form, is a thing wholly imag- 
inary, and is contradicted by all the facts. He appointed 
ministers ^?^, and not out of, the Church — the Church of 
which he himself was a member, in which he was born, and 
in which he died. Making no radical changes in any thing, 
but taking the Scriptures for his Bible, he gave to the 
Church such directions, both general and particular, as 
wholesomeness and good order required. 

''Sixthly,^ the Doctor continues, " Christ taught the great 
doctrines concerning a future state of being." Most assur- 
edly he did ; but did he teach them as new ? Was it the 
inaugurating of a new doctrine in the Church ? Certainly 
not He taught this doctrine out of the Scriptures, where 
it had already been revealed by himself, through Job, 
David, Daniel, and Isaiah ; and he explained and enforced 
it more fully than it had been done by any one previously. 
Many ministers have done the same thing, both before and 
since his day. 

Thus it is that the New Testament elaborates the Old. 
The religion of the Old, in all its parts and doctrines, is 
extensively, ingeniously, and authoritatively explained, en- 
forced, illustrated, and elaborated over and over, and in 
many ways, in the New. 

The Jews who went Avith their rulers in rejecting Christ, 
repudiated the Jewish Scriptures so far as Christ wad con- 
cerned. And how far was this ? It was just so far as their 
religion was concerned. It is not enough to say that Christ 
was in the Old Testajnent : the truth is, there was, and is, 
in the Old Testament, nothing else but Christ, which goes 



266 THE NEW TESTAMENT 

to make up its system of religious faith. These rejecting 
Jews, therefore, repudiated the religion of their fathers in 
entireness. In nominally holding to the Scriptures as they 
did, and still do, they hold to nothing but a similarity of 
names, to some history, the history of a people whose 
religion they repudiate, to some verbiage, unmeaning ma- 
nipulations, etc. 

If there is, as a mere matter of fact, any addition in the 
New Testament to the religion of the Old, or any dimin- 
ishing from it, then the one or the other is untrue ; for both 
of these are clearly and expressly forbidden. 

" Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, 
neither shall ye diminish aught from it ; that ye may keep 
the commandments of the Lord your God which I com- 
mand you." Deut. iv. 2. 

" What thing soever 1 command you, observe and do it : 
thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it." Deut. xii. 32. 

"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and 
thou be found a liar." Prov. xxx. 6. 

I am at a loss how to understand the learned Dr. Olshau- 
sen when he says — Com., Vol I., p. 135 — "The Scriptures 
are divided into two parts, of which the first relates to God's 
covenant with man in the law, the second to the covenant 
of grace" 

This, as a general division of the teachings of all the 
Scriptures, is all well enough ; but if he intends to mean 
that the covenant of the laiv is the Old Testament, and that 
of grace is the New, he is very much mistaken ; for both 
law and grace are abundantly covenanted in both, and 
exclusively in neither. Texts in proof are abundant : See 
Ezek. ix. 8, Ps. xlv. 2, Ixxxiv. 11, Prov. iii. 34, Zech. xii. 10, 
Ex. xxii. 27, xxxiv. 6, etc. Will any man say that sal- 
vation by grace is not offered to aH mankind in the Old 
Testament ? 



ELABORATES THE OLD. 267 

The New Testament elaborates the Old, But in so saying, 
I do not by any means intend to teach that the New Testa- 
ment is merely a comment upon the Old, on the principles 
of logical reason, as uninspired men would elaborate them 
by the mere force of reason. It was, however, all this ; but 
in addition thereto, it w^as an exposition authoritatively an- 
nounced, and from which there was no appeal; it was a 
divine exposition of divine teachings. Such an exposition was 
eminently necessary. The condition of the world, the 
progress of language, the improvements in the modes of 
didactic instruction, together with the circumstances attend- 
ing the coming of Christ, rendered it necessary. 

The New Testament is a divinely-inspired comment upon, 
and elucidation of, the writings of the prophets; which 
writings, however, contain all the doctrines of religion. 
Those Scriptures are certainly susceptible of indefinite 
elaboration ; but they needed — many of the things taught, 
needed — an authoritative explication. This is given not 
only authoritatively by unerring inspiration, but with a 
master hand; and at the same time that it does this, it 
places a legible finger-post at every logical and doctrinal 
point, which may serve as a guide to all future elaboration 
of the same great truths. 



268 CHRIST'S TRUE POSITION IN REGARD 



CHAPTER XXXIX 



Christ's true position in regard both to the old 

AND new testaments BRIEFLY STATED. 



In the economy of God, respecting man's salvation, it 
was the policy that there should not only be a Saviour, 
sustaining the relation to man he now does, but that he 
should be seen by man. Without making a personal, 
palpable appearance among men, we would always labor 
under the lack of at least one of the greatest and most 
important evidences of his being, and of our duty to him. 
This appearance, then, to be made most useful, must be 
accommodated to our circumstances and condition. It 
might have been made at the very first, or it might have 
been continuous, or it might have been, as it was, for a 
brief space, and after a lapse of time. 

The first would have been attended with many obvious 
disadvantages. The world was then in an exceedingly 
dark, twilight condition, with no knowledge of itself, nor 
of God ; no science, no literature, no history, no experi- 
ence. The appearance would have been lost, for almost 
all beneficial efiects, in the obscurity of a dim and almost 
embryo condition of things. And for the appearance — 
the Emmanuel state of Christ — to have been continuous, 
its efiects would have been lost in the uncertainty of a 
commonplace familiarity. The awe and reverence so neces- 



TO THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 269 

sary to be inspired, would soon be lost and gone, and the 
whole plan be defeated. 

Eight here is an important principle in human nature 
very necessary to be noted: the more we see any thing, 
the less and the less we are impressed by it; and the 
more w^e believe a truth or thing unseen, the more we thus 
dwell by faith upon it — the more effect continuously it 
produces on the mind and heart. Let this important 
thought be elaborated by the reader. 

Then the present plan only would have answered the 
end ; and then it must be after a reasonable lapse of time, 
and for a brief period ; and then it must be at some par- 
ticular period in contradistinction to all others. And so 
we read it was in " the fullness of time," that is, the best 
time. Many reasons could be stated for this. 

Now, the system of religious information and instruction 
designed for mankind, had been long since revealed to 
the world. And yet nothing had been fully revealed. It 
required the Emmanuel state of Christ in order for any 
revelation, past, present, or future, to be sufficiently vivi- 
fied, established, and confirmed. The Old Testament reve- 
lation was believed by Old Testament Christians only be- 
cause they believed in the Christ which made up its religious 
system. The truth of the one was necessarily dependent 
on the truth of the other ; and if the appearance had 
been put off to this day, we should be now dependent on 
our faith in the future coming for our belief in the truth 
of the revelation. 

Christ was not, as many writers seem to consider him, 
a mere theologian, who appeared in his day, as did Isaiah, 
and Paul, and others, with authority to regulate religious 
matters then present and future. The Old Testament 
became a divine testament, so far as man's appreciation of 
it was concerned, only because he, by his coming and 



270 Christ's true position in regard 

work, made it so. The Old Testament is as much de- 
pendent on him as the New. Whatever of life, divinity, 
or power either possesses, it derives from him. He con- 
firmed the Old Testament, and made it Scripture. It was 
Scripture all the while indeed, but was still dependent 
on him for its absolute certitude and authenticity. It was 
as much dependent on him for its annunciation as was the 
New. 

So that the time of the coming of Christ becomes a 
period of momentous import to the Church ; but it calls 
for, or introduces, a new Church, or a new religion, or new 
ethics, or modes of worship, or conditions of grace or sal- 
vation, no more than it does a new Saviour or a new 
Creator. The Saviour came not to destroy one jot or one 
tittle of the religious system then known and prescribed 
to the Church ; on the contrary, he came to teach, to con- 
firm, to establish, every part of it. 

On one occasion, Luke x. 25, the Saviour was asked the 
direct question. What should one do to inherit eternal life ? 
And what was his reply ? It was not that he was about 
to set up in the world a new system of salvation, by which 
men might be saved on the basis of believing something. 
No ; he referred the inquirer directly to the Old Testament 
Scriptures for an answer. " What is written in the law ? 
How readest thou ?" If you wish to be saved, read the 
divinely-revealed directions in the Scriptures — there you 
will find a complete system of salvation. 

But at the same time that he referred this man to the 
Old Testament Scriptures for a complete rule of faith, 
as he did all others on all occasions, he explained and 
opened out those teachings, embellishing and enlarging 
them, giving them new attractions, and placing them in 
more favorable points of light. 

He came not to destroy those teachings, but to teach 



TO THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 271 

THEM. He came to announce no new rules of religion, 
or different conditions of salvation, but to explain and 
enforce the old ones. 

When he overtook Cleopas and his companion, did he 
say to them, " See here, friends, you do not understand the 
matter ? A new dispensation is about to be opened. This 
old religion is rapidly vanishing away. It never was any 
thing but 'the Jewish religion,' and the Jews are to be 
superseded, and the Gentiles are to 'come in their room.' 
Christianity is now about to be set up ; a ' new system ' is to 
be introduced. Salvation by faith is hereafter to be the rule. 
The law of Moses answered tolerably well for Scripture so 
long as it was intended to last, but the gospel, a 'new 
religion,' is to be the rule hereafter." Did the Saviour 
explain things in that way ? Did he intimate such things ? 

No, no ! Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he 
expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things con- 
cerning his religious administration; about his kingdom; 
regarding the religion of mankind, then and forever. That 
was, in his estimation, the gospel ; and if that, the wTitings 
of the prophets, be not the gospel — if there be any other 
principles of religion constituting a gospel — any thing else, 
or any thing additional, necessary to make up a gospel, in 
the fullest and largest sense, then I hesitate not to say the 
Saviour did not teach a gospel; no, nor did he authorize 
anybody else to do so. 

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he ex- 
pounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things con- 
cerning himself." That is the reading, I insist. 

I came not to destroy, but to fulfill, said he on another 
occasion ; and so far as I knov/, all the critics agree that 
the word fidfill would be read quite as correctly, if not 
more so, to teach. Dr. Clarke says the same word, in other 
places, is rendered "teach." He came to teach. One 



272 CHRIST*S TRUE POSITION IN REGARD 

of the two great fundamental ends of his manifestation 
of himself to the world, was to teach the then existing 
Scriptures. 

He is announced and spoken of as a teacher all over 
the Scriptures in many places; and as a teacher of re- 
ligion, I affirm that he did not teach any thing beyond the 
religion of the Old Testament. He came not to set up 
a " new religion/' but a new, more popular, more accom- 
modating, better adapted system, of teaching the already 
written religion. He came not to " found " a religion, but 
to enforce and teach the one he had already founded, or 
revealed rather. He came not to " introduce Christianity," 
but to teach the Christianity he had introduced four thou- 
sand years before. 

" Did not our hearts burn within us," said the two disci- 
ples; and why? Was it because the Saviour informed 
them that he was about to set up his kingdom ? Because 
the " new dispensation " was about to be ushered in ? Because 
the Old Covenant, wdth which they had become familiar, 
had come to an end, and a new, and superior, and different 
one was about to succeed it? Because the Saviour was 
about to "change the religion of the world"? Because 
the Jews were about to be cursed out of the Churchi and 
out of the favor of God, and the Gentiles — somebody else 
besides Jews — ^were to be " brought in " ? No, no, no ! 

Their hearts burned for other and different reasons en- 
tirely. No such things as these were hinted at ; but while 
he opened to them the Scriptures — while he explained to 
them more fully their own religion — their hearts were so 
thrilled and exercised. It was Judaism, the wTitten Ju- 
daism of the Old Testament — pure, not false Judaism, that 
so fired their souls. The Saviour explained to them the 
religion of Moses — the divine promises, conditions, and 
principles of salvation, which were as old as Abel, with 



TO THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 273 

nothing " new " about it. It was this that so exercised the 
hearts of Cleopas and his companion. 

I beg pardon of some of St. Paul's interpreters, while I 
refuse to believe there is any "new dispensation" in the 
sense they mean; that there is any "new" and superior 
"covenant" in the sense they mean; while I decline to 
believe in any " new sect," or " new religion," in the sense 
they mean ; while, indeed, 1 decline to receive any such 
" Christianity," with its " peculiarities," and new doctrines, 
as they tell us the Saviour introduced ; while I repudiate 
such a " kingdom of Christ " as they explain upon their 
chronological principles and distinctions. 

On the contrary, I hold the Emmanuelship of the God- 
head to be a far higher, holier, more rational, and more true 
principle, than an attempt to exhibit and to prove divine 
mutability, fickleness, and instability. The "advent of 
Christ," as we call it, was not, as it respects the Godhead, 
a merely adventitious thing, a circumstance which turned 
out that way, like the birth of a man or the accession of a 
king; but is rather a great, and to us, incomprehensible 
aspect of the Divine unity, the Divine existence, and the 
Divine glory. Viewed from a point of observation infinitely 
wise, it is cumbered with no chronological rules or restric- 
tions ; it is subject to no such laws as we would be com- 
pelled to apply to that one mode of existence which alone 
is known to us. 

From earth this view is very obscure, is but partially 
intelligible, has no parallel, nor scarcely a faint simili- 
tude. We err, therefore, when we make the Saviour a 
new-comer — that he then began, at some date, to exist, or 
to supervise the affairs of the world. We forget that, in 
so doing, we violate one of the most fundamental and 
important doctrines of theology. This very same person 
whom we call Jesus, was the administrator and supervisor 



274 CHRIST'S TRUE POSITION IN REGARD 

of the affairs of earth — of man, his faith, and his Church, 
in antediluvian times, in the deliverance from Egypt, the 
instructions of Sinai, the schooling of the prophets, no 
more and no less than in the visibilities of the atonement, or 
the teaching of the apostles. In himself, he was no more 
— no more conspicuous — no more distinguished, acted no 
more important a part in the affairs of mankind, in the 
days of John or Pilate, than in those of Abraham or 
Enoch. 

We err, therefore, when, by a mere piece of biographical 
literature, w^e undertake to make a " Life of Christ,'* and 
familiarize earthly biography and incident with the great 
and eternal principles of existence, w^hich have in them 
nothing sensuous, nothing physical. 

This earth and its affairs were committed to the lordship 
of Christ from its very foundations. Christ was the Logos, 
Jesus was the appearance. 

A " Life " of Caesar, or of any other man, would be mere 
biographical truth; but the Emmanuelship of the God- 
head is something infinitely higher, infinitely holier. Its 
administration, purpose, and intervention so w^onderfuUy 
exalt, sublimate, and portray the divine mercy, that any 
mere biography of Jesus, as it was seen in Palestine, is so 
far from placing the Emmanuel in a favorable light, even 
to our feeble perceptions, that, write it as you may, it 
throws but a dim light upon the canvas, and can, at best, 
but exhibit a scantling of the divine mercy and conde- 
scension. 

Still we are not, by any means, to undervalue the divine 
biography, nor condemn any wise and pious attempts to 
present that in attracting forms and better points of light 
before these dull visual organs of ours ; but as we write 
and as we read, we should remember that the true glory 
and proper exaltation of Christ Jesus is not to be deduced 



TO THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 275 

solely from any or all of these mere facts in the history 
of Palestine. 

And if we are dependent on history for historic truth, 
be it so, and let us be content with our lot ; but let us not 
make history prove more than it was designed to prove. 
While Jesus was a man, he was one of the triune aspects 
of the Deity. Nothing is gained, therefore, to the divine 
glory by attempts to overstrain the merely human acts 
of the man. 

It is the intimate and inseparable connection of the 
Saviour with the divine unity of Jehovah — the hypostatic 
union, which gives both to his person and his work the 
distinctive and exclusive peculiarity which forms the 
foundation of the Christian faith. It is this connection, 
and not the mere acts themselves, which invests the man 
with the divine character. The lips of the man do not 
utter mere human wisdom — they speak forth the oracles 
of the enshrined divinity within. The divinity compassed 
him, enshrouded him, exhibited him. Thomas touched his 
very flesh, and in the ecstasy of a newly-inspired devotion, 
cried out, " My Lord and my God !" 

It is this connection, and this alone, which gives that 
soft, mysterious, and wonderfully persuasive influence to 
his example. This, indeed, was a human example, or else 
how could it be an example to us ? An angel could not 
set an example to man ; neither could God, viewed in his 
essential spirituality, be an example to us. We can recog- 
nize no exemplar but a man like ourselves. Yet all this 
rested upon the basis of a higher and holier principle than 
man's nature — all was exalted and glorified by the latent 
Godhead. Like a cloud radiant with the tints of loveliness, 
tempered to the human eye, but still deriving its luster, 
its grandeur, and magnificence from the very sun which it 
veils from us. 



276 CHRIST'S TRITE POSITION IN REGARD 

It is a mistaken attempt, therefore, with some writers to 
make out that Christ did a great many of such ecclesiastical 
and religious things as pertain to a pope. This does not 
honor the Saviour. He was not great in that sense. His 
true greatness consisted in his divinity. The religion and 
ethics of mankind depended upon him both for its expedi- 
ency and its truth — those in the days of the apostles, or in 
our day, or future years, no more than those in the days of 
Abel, of Noah, or of Moses. His life and his death sealed 
the whole with one single seal and signet. 

Christ was not an ecclesiastic nor a pope ; he was God. 
His atonement was not made eighteen hundred years ago*; 
it was made at least as long ago as the early days of Adam. 
All that was done about it eighteen hundred years ago, was 
a mere exhibition, or manifestation of the great fact, in- 
tended merely for such eyes and comprehension as could 
not otherwise discern, or know, or appreciate it. Christ 
was God manifest 

Many authors write as though the mediatorial work 
of Christ was entered upon in the days of John. Before 
that we had no Christ — no Christianity — only a "legal 
dispensation f and so we have, now and then, a strangely- 
conceived " Life of Christ," put forth in the form of human 
biography. These restricted views of the great work of the 
Saviour of mankind are, in my view, greatly dishonoring. 
With a volume of logic and testimony, they prove to us 
that Christ was " greater than Moses !" During the first 
four thousand years of the world, they recognize in him no 
mediatorial work — no great and overwhelming displays 
of the divine glory in Christ. A Saviour, they tell us, w^as 
promised by and by. Wait, and he will come and be 
installed into office after a while. The lifetime of Christ, 
as we have it portrayed oftentimes, was the lifetime of a 
man. They recognize in him no teaching, no headship of 



TO THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 277 

the Church, no supervising care over the pious, no dispen- 
sation of divine grace, nor administration of divine mercy, 
nor Christian discipline, nor authorship of Christian salva- 
tion, until the incoming of a chronological period, which 
they tell us chronologers and historians have named with 
the title of " Christianity !'' 



278 THK CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES 



CHAPTER XL. 

THE CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES, AND THEIR COMMON 
INCORPORATION WITH THE JEWS IN THE BLE,SSINGS OF 
TRUE RELIGION, WAS ALWAYS A JEWISH DOCTRINE. 

How far some, or even most of the Jews, at the time of 
Christ, or at any other time, may have understood the 
rehgion of the Jewish Scriptures, is one thing; what those 
fecriptures really teach and enjoin, is another. Judaism is 
"the religious doctrines and rites of the Jews." This 
religion is written, and is the same, notwithstanding any 
misreadings or misunderstandings of it by these or those 
persons. Along near the period of Christ, there was a good 
deal of misconstruction of Scripture. History accounts for 
,this. 

During and after the captivity, there was more mixing 
of Jews with other nations ; and so leading men imbibed 
more of heathen speculative philosophy— as such views 
were commonly called— than formerly. And then, as you 
approach near to the time of Christ, we find those schools, 
sometimes called sects— the Pharisees, Sadducees, and' Es- 
senes. These bore no resemblance to what we now call sects 
or denominations, but were small, exclusive associations, or 
societies, for the encouragement and propagation of opin- 
ions or doctrines in philosophy, so called, and philosophic 
and speculative theology. 

These schools of philosophy went out and cultivated 



WAS ALWAYS A JEWISH DOCTRINE. 279 

acquaintance with, and gathered up opinions and doctrines 
among, the Greeks and Romans chiefly ; and though they 
did not adopt any of them — so far as they were strictly 
religious — jet it is easy to see, that in process of time, the 
religion of the Church would become, by little and little, 
tainted and burdened with them. These associations, though 
small in number, were large in influence, because of their 
learning and high pretensions to knowledge. 

One of these late Hebrew errors, thus generated, was the 
doctrine of the utter religious extirpation of all Gentile 
people. Salvation is of the Jews, was a great and impor- 
tant truth, much misunderstood. It was then, as it is now, 
the Church on the one hand, and the ^' world'' on the other. 
This was the general division of the pious and the wicked. 
The Church was called by the common name of Jews — all 
others out of the Church were called Gentiles. The rule 
of religion was the same then as now, though not so well 
understood. Those who stood aloof from the Church — from 
true religion — would be lost. The only salvation for irre- 
ligious outsiders is to leave their irreligious ways, come into 
the Church, and be religious. The Saviour said to the 
woman of Samaria, "Salvation is of the Jews." This is 
equivalent to saying that salvation is of the Church, This 
is the law always. How far the error among the Jews at 
that time extended, of Jewish exclusiveness, connected with 
the notion of ecclesiastical descent lineally from Jacob, we 
canilot now well ascertain ; but these errors, whatever they 
were, were not the Jewish religion, but mistakes respect- 
ing it. 

The doctrine of the Jewish Church was, that salvation ivas 
fully and freely offered to all mankind. Their doctrine on 
this subject is plain; and it is, and always was, that the 
design of the Almighty always was to extend his freely- 
offered grace to all mankind ; and that the tendency of the 



280 THE CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES 

Church and its religion was to associate all mankind in one 
common brotherhood in Christ. This always was, and is 
now, the doctrine of the Church. 

What was the character of the mission of Jonah to Nin- 
eveh ? Was it not to spread religious truth, and invite all 
men to embrace it ? And how extensively the revelation of 
Christ, and salvation through him, may have been spread 
among the nations, in the lapse of ages, by various means, 
who can tell ? Many, many things occurred in those long, 
long periods, which are not noted in the history. Whence 
came the Eastern sages at the birth of Christ ? What were 
their views of Christianity ? and whom did they represent ? 
The doctrine of the Church is plain : it was, as it is now, to 
disciple all nations. 

But I do not say that everybody so understood it. Thou- 
sands — in some places whole communities — do not so under- 
stand it at this day. Thousands, perhaps, or at least some 
with whom the Saviour met, did not so understand their 
religion. 

If any one doubts that the doctrine of the Church, at 
and before the time of Christ, was as I state it, let him turn 
to Ps. xxii. 27, Isa. ix. 2, xiv. 1, Ps. ii. 8, Isa. ii. 2, xi. 10, 
Ix. 10, Ps. ix, 20, xlvii. 8, Isa. xlii. 1-4, xlix. 5-8, and many 
other places. Their doctrine was that " all kings shall fall 
down before him." They received the teaching of Habakkuk, 
who said, " The earth shall be filled with the knowledge of 
the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." And 
they believed many similar expressions from other Jewish 
teachers. 

But we are told that the Jews did not believe it. I ask, 
what Jews? I have cited above the teachings of some 
Jews who did believe it, because they not only taught, but 
wrote it, and proclaimed it abroad under the spirit of inspi- 
ration; and for more than seven hundred years it was, 



WAS ALWAYS A JEWISH DOCTRINE. 281 

Sabbath after Sabbath, read in all the Churches. It was 
the well-established religion of the Church ; as well estab- 
lished then as it is bow, though there were, and still are, 
some who do not believe it. The Saviour met, we are told, 
with some of these persons who seemed to understand the 
religion of their Church but very imperfectly on this as 
W'CU as many other subjects ; but the rule is, and always 
was, that " if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, 
and heirs according to the promise." 

There never was any religion in the Church which re- 
stricted salvation to anybody. From the day a Saviour 
was promised till this day, it was as wide as Isaiah pro- 
claimed it : " Ho ! every one that thirsteth, come ye to the 
waters ;" and as the Saviour proclaimed it : " Come unto me 
all ye that labor." The doctrine of the Church, wide, open, 
and well understood, always was, " Let the wicked forsake 
his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts." Special 
efforts were early made for a special people, for prudential 
and merciful reasons ; but the religion of the Church, from 
the first and always, contemplated the complete and final 
subjugation of the entire race. 

And not only was the salvation of all men the doctrine 
of the Church before Christ, but, "Behold, now is the 
accepted time ; behold, now is the day of salvation," w^as 
also taught by Isaiah, and quoted from him by Paul. It 
was, therefore, always the doctrine of the Church that it 
was the then present duty of all men to join the people of 
God, and be " now " saved by Christ. 

How, then, is it that we are so often told that, under the 
" Jewish dispensation," religion was restricted to a particular 
people? A more glaring error could scarcely be taught. 
Religion was never any more confined nor restricted than 
it is now. The doctrine of the Church on these subjects 
is now what it always was. 



282 "AN EYE FOR AN EYE, 



CHAPTER XLI. 

"AN EYE FOR AN EYE AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH," WAS 
NEVER A JEWISH DOCTRINE. 

The doctrine of personal retaliation — " an eye for an eye 
and a tooth for a tooth" — to love your friends and hate your 
enemies — is, by some, said to be the whole rule of ethics, under 
the " Jewish dispensation ;" while under the Christian, it is 
to resist not evil, but to love your enemies ; and I have had 
the misfortune to hear this doctrine explained in this way, 
both in the books and in the pulpit. The Christian dispen- 
sation, it is said, opened with a higher and purer rule of 
morals than that which belonged to the law of Moses. 
Then we have a low and imperfect rule of morals pre- 
scribed to the Jews, and a higher and better rule for 
Christians. 

It seems to me a deduction of reason, that it would be 
impossible for God, at any time of the world, to prescribe a 
rule of morals below that which meets the character of God 
and the nature of man, and the relation between them, as 
established by the divine constitution. 

This class of* teaching is entirely misunderstood. The 
laws referred to by the Saviour are very briefly alluded to 
in Ex. xxi. 24, Lev. xxiv. 20, and Deut. xix. 21. What 
these laws were, fully and in detail, we have no means now 
of knowing. They were civil laws, to be administered by 



NOT A JEWISH DOCTRINE. 283 

judges or magistrates in adjudicating the rights of parties 
litigant, and not mere rules for the regulation of private, 
individual conduct. So far as we see, from the brief allu- 
sions to them which we have, they seem to be substan- 
tially the same kind of laws we have now; that is, the 
great law of equivalents, or of equity between man and 
man. If a man take or destroy the property of another, 
he shpJl return an equivalent; or if the nature of the 
offense or crime be such that this is impossible, so far as the 
injured person is concerned, then he shall suffer punishment 
graduated to the crime as near as may be. 

This is the law now. The English constitution and 
common law, and American statutes, are based upon it. 
He who reads personal retaliations, or private wrongs, in 
these laws of Moses, reads that which was never there — that 
which was never dreamed of in them. The great European 
and American jurists understood them better. 

The Saviour, in his day, met with those who misunder- 
stood the Scriptures; and he explained to them the true 
meaning thereof. It is not very strange that those divine 
teachings should be misconstrued — in the Saviour's time — 
to mean private revenge, since they are so misconstrued 
by some now; nor is it strange that the Saviour should 
administer to them a sound and authoritative exposition of 
those divine teachings. As in all other cases, the Saviour 
taught a conformity to the Scriptures, not a departure from 
them. He was himself expounding the law. 

" Ye have head that it hath been said, An eye for an eye 
and a tooth for a tooth. That is, you have heard errone- 
ous teachings of the Scriptures ; you have listened to those 
who perverted the true teachings of Scripture, and who 
taught what the Scriptures do not teach. Listen now to me, 
and I will teach you, not a new doctrine, though it may be 
new to you ; I will teach you the true Scripture teaching." 



284 ^^AN EYE FOR AN EYE.'* 

This is in substance the things which the Saviour said. He 
explained to them what the Scripture was, instead of teach- 
ing them for doctrine what it was not 

And if any man doubts this, let him look into the Old 
Testament, and see if he can find private revenge prescribed 
as part of its religion. 



ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY. 285 



CHAPTER XLII. 

WHEN AND WHERE DO WE FIND THE ORIGIN OF CHRIS- 
TIANITY ? 

Dr. Schaff, in his History of the Church, page 17, says : 
" The beginning of Church history is properly the incarna- 
tion of the Son of God." " But since the Church, as an 
organic union of the disciples of Jesus, comes into view 
first on the day of Pentecost, we may take this point as the 
beginning." And, generally, he pursues the old, contradic- 
tory argument, first on one side and then on the other, that 
previously to this time the association of religious people, 
under the divine directions, was, and was not, the true and 
proper Church of the living God. 

Dr. Schaff, in direct, and, I regret to add, in rather fash- 
ionable hostility with himself, would meet you very stoutly 
at the threshold, v/ith abundance of refuting arguments, 
if you were to attempt to hold that all along previous to 
the coming of Christ there was not a regular, true, and 
proper Church. And, with Mr. Watson, he would tell you 
that, " at the coming of Christ, there was not one Church 
taken away, and another set up in its room ; but the. Church 
continued the samer And yet, when his Anabaptist com- 
petitor is out of sight, and he is writing about what he calls 
" Christianity,^^ he tells you the beginning of Church history 
is practically at the day of Pentecost, but really and legally 



286 WHEN AND WHERE DO WE FIND 

at the incarnation. Previously there was no Church, and, 
of course, no Church history ! 

Neander, Gieseler, and a dozen other authors easily named, 
fix the origin of the Church at the time of the Christian era, 
when speaking of the Church in a more or less historical 
kind of way. But the same authors, or some of them, and 
many others, who readily receive their teachings in this 
regard, when in the lists of polemics, on some questions 
which inquire into the unity of the Church, contend that 
the Church existed in all its completeness, from the days 
of Abraham at least. Both things cannot be true. One 
is, and the other is not. 

The title-page to Rider's Gregory is, "A Concise History 
of the Christian Church, from its first establishment to the 
present time." This " first establishment " of the Churcli 
was at the time of the apostles, where he separates between 
"the Jewish religion" and "the Christian dispensation." 
And this glaring and important violation of historic truth 
is ofi[icially taught to thousands of under-graduates in the 
ministry; and they are thus left with the confused and 
contradictory lessons that the Church did absolutely, and 
that it most certainly did not^ begin to exist about eighteen 
hundred years ago ! 

Nevin, in his Biblical Antiquities, in his table of contents, 
tells us about the " Organization of the Jewish Church," 
which he explains in his text. He also teaches us all 
about the " Continuance of the Jewish Church all its ap- 
pointed time." This appointed time, limited for the contin- 
uance of this Church, was at the period of the preaching 
of Peter and John. Now, this Church ceased to exist 
when " the Christian Church " came into being — a new and 
widely different thing — embodying a truer and better relig- 
ion. The old w^as "Jewish," and the new is " Christian." 

Not many years ago, I listened to a Doctor of Divinity 



THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY? 287 

of considerable note, while he preached to a large and 
intelligent city congregation. He labored to set forth 
that Christ and the apostles, in the first establishment 
of Christianity, had to meet and successfully contend 
against two great and very powerful competitors or ene- 
mies. First, there stood Idolatry^ the false religion of sur- 
rounding nations, with its firm front and deep-rooted 
influence; and, second, there was Judaism, with its mum- 
mery of forms, falsehoods, and prejudices. These two false 
systems of religion stood right in the way of the establish- 
ment and progress of Christianity, the only true religion. 

But while he was preaching, I could not repress the 
inquiry which kept forcing itself upon my mind, whether 
this same Judaism, which was such a powerful and bold 
opponent of true religion, was not this day, word for word, 
a very large portion of the Christian Bible. And if I 
am not mistaken, the Doctor was himself so far from re- 
pudiating it, that he took his text on the occasion from 
a portion of it. 

Eevealed religion — ^no matter when it was revealed — 
must be true; and cannot, therefore, conflict with any 
thing else that is true. But religion is not true because 
it is revealed; it was revealed because it was true. It 
was just as true before it was revealed as afterward ; and 
if it had never been revealed, would have remained just 
as true. 

Then it is impossible there could be two religions — one 
for Jews, and one for Gentiles. 

The word Christianity is the name of a certain written 
system of religion. When was that system of religion 
first written? or, in other words, when did Christianity 
originate f Will any man say that this system of religion, 
or any distinct, integral portion or doctrine of it, origi- 
nated about the time of the Christian era ? No man can 



288 WHEN AND WHERE DO WE FIND 

say that, for there is, every part of it, written and pub- 
lished many hundred years previously. It has been shown 
in a previous chapter — and I presume no man will for 
a moment attempt to question that distinct proposition — 
that there is not a doctrine of either religion or ethics 
written in the New Testament, which is not also found 
written in the Old. 

Nothing is more common among a certain class of wri- 
ters, than to see Christ spoken of as the author of the 
Christian religion. This is certainly most true, if it be 
understood that, as God, he produced the system in the 
beginning. But it is utterly untrue, if it be meant that 
he produced it eighteen hundred years ago. They speak 
of " the peculiar doctrines of Christianity," meaning thereby 
religious doctrines different from those known to the Church 
before the days of Christ. But I have not known any 
man attempt to specify or describe any such " peculiar '* 
doctrines. And I deny that there are any. 

Watson's Dictionary, Art. Church, tells us most explicitly, 
and argues it most conclusively, that at the coming of Christ 
there was no change in the Church, except mere incidental 
changes, such as might be necessary at any time in some 
external matters, and were rendered necessary by the mere 
coming of Messiah. And he explains how erroneous it is 
for theologians to speak of the "Christian Church," and 
the " Jewish Church," as though these were two different 
Churches. And yet there are many, very many, places in 
that same Dictionary, and as many, and perhaps more, in 
his Institutes, where he clearly inculcates the idea of tico 
Churches and two religions. He frequently speaks of " the 
new religion;" of the origin of the Christian religion, 
locating it in Palestine in the days of the Saviour. And 
he frequently speaks of Jews and Christians as persons 
religiously distinct and antagonistic, being there in Pales- 



THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY? 289 

tine in the early preaching of the apostles. This cannot 
possibly fail to mislead where the teaching is heeded, be- 
cause it is certain, and no man y/ill for a moment contra- 
dict it, that at that time there conld be no such distinc- 
tion, because all the Christians luere Jews. Until about 
twelve years after the ascension of Christ, w^hen the Church, 
as recognized by the apostles, must have numbered hun- 
dreds of thousands, and probably millions, there was not 
a person in it but a Jew — no, not one. All the Christians 
were Jews, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, 
which is most probable, of Jews were Christians. 

And yet, in many places in his Institutes — in all parts of 
the book, and in many places in his Dictionary — he speaks 
of Jews and Christians, of the Jewish Church and the 
Christian Church, and of the religion of each as though 
they were as distinct and dissimilar as any tw^o things 
can be distinct and dissimilar. He says the Christian 
Church was modeled after the Jewish Church. Then, of 
course, it was another. He tells us of the Church of the 
Old Testament and of the New as two different Churches. 
In many places, in various incidental expressions, he 
teaches of these two Churches, and two religions ; and 
he is so understood by many of the ministers of his 
Church. 

Mr. Watson teaches that true religion, revealed from 
heaven, was abundantly known and practiced among men 
in very ancient times and ever since. And he also teaches 
that " Christianity " w^as first introduced into the world in 
the days of our Saviour, eighteen, hundred years ago. 
Both these things cannot be true. 

Christianity originated when the conditions of salvation 
were first revealed from heaven to earth, and, with all 
Chnstian precepts, are written in the Old Testament. This 
will be more fully seen in the next chapter. 
10 



290 THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF RELIGION 



CHAPTER XLIII. 

EVERY THING ]MAKING UP THE SYSTEM OP RELIGION, 
WHICH WE COMMONLY CALL THE GOSPEL, IS WRITTEN 
IN THE OLD TESTAIMENT SCRIPTURES. 

It has heretofore been shown, in Chapter XXII., that 
all the doctrines of religion taught in the New Testament 
are likewise taught in the Old ; and it will now be shown 
that the gospel, in its broadest sense, as a system of divine 
teaching, embracing religion and ethics in all its ramifica- 
tions and varied aspects, is also found in the Old Testament. 

The following quotations cover all the ground occupied 
by Scripture revelation. I will cite but a very few texts on 
each point. To cite them all, would require this chapter to 
be lengthened out until it would become almost a Bible-dic- 
tionary. In referring to them, it will frequently be neces- 
sary to refer to the context, sometimes for several verses. 

Men are adopted by God's free grace — Ezek. xvi. 3-6, 
Num. vi. 27, Isa. Ixiii. 16. The affections should be su- 
premely set on God — Deut. vi. 5, Ps. xlii. 1, Ixxiii. 25, cxix. 
10. Consolation under affliction — Isa. iii. 12, Ixvi. 13, Ezek. , 
xiv. 22. The duty of relie\ang the distresses of others — 
Job xxxi. 19, Isa. Iviii. 10. Angels — Neh. ix. 6, 1 Kings 
xix. 5. Forbidding the indulgence of anger — Ecc. vii. 9, 
Prov. xii. 16, xiv. 29. The anger of God is averted by 
confession and repentance — Job xxxiii. 27, Ps. cvi. 43-45. 



IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 291 

Christ is the anointed — Ps. xlv. 7, Isa. Ixi. 1. Apos- 
tasy — Deut. xiii. 13, Zeph. i. 4-6. The ascension of Christ — 
Ps. xxiv. 7 — compare Levit. xvi. 15, with Heb. vi. 20. 
Atonement — Isa. liii. 4-12, Dan. ix. 24-27. Backsliding — 
1 Kings xi. 9, Ps. Ixxviii. 57-59. Baptism with the Holy- 
Ghost — Ezek. xxxvi. 25. The blessedness of those who 
know the gospel — Ps. Ixxxix. 15 ; and of those whose sins 
are forgiven — Ps. xxxii. 1,2; and of those who trust in 
God — Ps. ii. 12, xxxiv. 8, Ixxxiv. 12, Jer. xvii. 7. Judicial 
blindness — Ps. Ixix. 23, Isa. xx. 10. The character of 
saints — Prov. xxviii. 1, Mai. iii. 16, Deut. vii. 6. Charac- 
ter of the wicked — Ps. x. 3, xlix. 6, Neh. iv. 8. Chastity — 
Ex. XX. 14, Prov. xxxi. 3 ; required in look and in heart — Job 
xxxi. 1, Prov. vi. 25. Christ the Head of the Church — 
Ps. cxviii. 22. He is a high priest — Num. xxiv. 17, Isa. ix. 
7. Christ the great shepherd — Isa. xl. 11, Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 
xxxvii. 24. The Church of God — Deut. iv. 5-14, xxvi. 18, 
X. 8, Gen. xvii. 10-14, Ex. xxix. 9. The universal law of 
life — Ex. XX. 3-17. Communion of saints — Mai. iii. 16, 
Ps. xvi. 3, xlii. 4, cxxxiii. 1-3. The Lord's Supper- 
Ex. xii. 21-28. Confession of sin — ^Hosea v. 15, Job xxxiii. 
27, Dan. ix. 20. The witness of the conscience — Prov. xx. 
27, 1 Samuel xxiv. 5. Conversion — 1 Kings xviii. 37, 
Prov. i. 23, Ps. xix. 7, Ezek. xviii. 23. The purposes and 
counsels of God — Jer. xxxii. 19, Isa. xxviii. 29. Covet- 
ousness — Ezek. xxxiii. 31, Ecc. v. 10. Eternal death — 
Prov. xiv. 12. The death of Christ — Isa. liii, 8, Dan. ix. 
26. Peace in death to saints — Isa. Ivii. 2, Ps. xxiii. 4, Job 
xiv. 14. The wicked die in their sins — Ezek. iii. 19. Delight 
in God — Ps. xxxvii. 4. The devil — Gen. iii. 1-6, Zech. iii. 
1. Devotedness to God — Ps. cxix. 38, 1 Samuel xii. 24. 
Disobedience to God — Ps. Ixxviii. 10-40, 1 Samuel xiii. 14. 
False doctrine — Jer. xxiii. 16, xxix. 8. The Old Testament 
contains the gospel — 2 Tim. iii. 16. Drunkenness — Isa. 



292 THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF RELIGION 

xxviii. 8. V. 11, Hosea iv. 11. Envy forbidden — Prov. iii. 
31. The excellency and glory of the Church — Isa. Ix. 1, 
xliii. 4, Ps. xcvi. 6. The faithfulness of God — Isa. xlix. 
7, Ps. Ixxxix. 8. The fall of man — Gen. iii. 6, 11, 12, ii. 
14. Fasting — Isa. Iviii. 6, 7, Zech. vii. 5, Ps. Ixix. 10. 
Godly fear — Isa. viii. 13, Jer. xxxii. 29-40. Forgiveness 
of injuries — Ps. vii. 4, Gen. xlv. 5-11. Friendship with 
God — Ex. xxxiii. 11, 2 Chron. xx. 7. The Gentiles are 
given to Christ — Ps. ii. 8, Isa. ii. 2. Glorifying God — 1 
Chron. xvi. 28, Isa. xlii. 12. The majesty and glory ol 
God — Job xxxvii. 22, Ps. xciii. 1, Isa. ii. 10. God is 
light — Isa. Ix. 19; is invisible — Job xxiii. 8, 9 ; is eternal — 
Deut. xxxiii. 27 ; is omniscient — Prov. v. 21 ; is omnipres- 
ent — Jer. xxiii. 23 ; is immutable — Ps. cii. 26 ; is glorious — 
Ex. XV. 11 ; is most high — Ps. xxxviii. 18 ; is holy — Ps. 
xcix. 9; is just — Isa. xlv. 21; is true — Jer. x. 10; is 
upright — Ps. XXV. 8 ; is righteous — Ezek. xxxiv. 6 ; is faith- 
ful — Deut. xxxii. 4; is merciful — Ex. xxxiv. 6; is long- 
suffering — Num. xiv. 18 ; is jealous — Josh. xxiv. 19 ; is 
compassionate — 2 Kings xiii. 23 ; fills heaven and earth — 
1 Kings viii. 27. The goodness of God is great — Neh. ix. 
35; is rich — Ps. civ. 24; is abundant — Ex. xxxiv. 6; is 
satisfying — Jer. xxxi. 12 ; is enduring — Ps. xxiii. 6. The 
gospel — Isa. Iii. 7 ; was preached under the Old Testament — 
Heb. iv. 2. Grace — Ps. Ixxxiv. 11, Zech. xii. 10. Happi- 
ness of saints in this life — Ps. Ixxiii. 25, Prov. iii. 17. 
Hatred forbidden — Lev. xix. 17, Prov. x. 18. Punishment 
of those who hate Christ — Ps. ii. 2-9, xxi. 8. The charac- 
ter of the renewed heart; it is inclined to seek God — 2 
Chron. xi. 16 ; is fixed on God — Ps. Ivii. 7 ; is joyful in 
God — 1 Samuel ii. 1 ; is perfect with God — 1 Kings viii. 61 ; 
is upright — Ps. xcvii. 11 ; is clean — Ps. Ixxiii. 1 ; is pure, 
content, obedient, filled with the law of God, void of fear, 
desirous of God, faithful, prayerful, etc., etc. The unre- 



m THE OLD TESTAMENT. 293 

newed heart is described and explained in more than fifty 
places, and its character pointed out in many more. The 
salvation of the heathen foretold — Gen. xii. 3, Isa. ii. 2-4. 
Heaven — Ps. Ixxxix. 29, Jer. xxxi. 37. Hell — Isa. xxxiii. 
14, Ps. ix. 17. Keligion is the way of holiness — Isa. xxxv. 
8. The holiness of God is set forth in many places. The 
Comforter is given by Christ — Isa. Ixi. 3. The Holy Ghost 
is God — Ex. xvii. 7, Isa. vi. 3 ; is the Spirit of wisdom — - 
Isa. xi. 2, Hospitality to the poor — Isa. Iviii. 7 ; and to our 
enemies— 2 Kings vi. 22. The human nature of Christ — 
Isa. liii. 3, 4, Jer. xxxi. 22. The duty and benefits of hu- 
mility — Ps. cxxxviii. 6, Isa. Ivii. 15. The humility of 
Christ — Zech. ix. 9, Isa. 1. 6. Hypocrisy — Isa. xxix. 15, 
xxxii. 26. Idolatry — Isa. xliv. 17, Deut. viii. 19. The 
indv/elling of the Holy Ghost — Ezek. xxxvi. 27, Isa. Ixiii. 
11. The wickedness of ingratitude — Isa. i. 2, 3, Jer. ii. 11. 
Injustice — Deut. xvi. 19, Prov. xxii. 16. Inspiration of the 
Holy Ghost — Joel ii. 28. Joy provided — Isa. xxxv. 10, Ps. 
xcvii. 11. The judgments of God — Amos iii. 6, Mic. vi. 9. 
The general judgment — 1 Chron. xvi. 3, Ecc. iii. 17. Jus- 
tification — Isa. xlv. 25. Justification by faith — Hab. ii. 4. 
The law of God was given to the Israelites — Ex. xx. 2, Ps. 
Ixxviii. 5. Christian liberality — Isa. Ixi. 1, xlii. 7. Spirit- 
ual life — Ps. xxxvi. 9, Ezek. xxxvii. 14, Isa. Iv. 3. The 
love of Christ — Prov. viii. 17. The love of God — Hos. xi. 
4. We are commanded to love God with all the heart — 
Deut. vi. 5. The loving kindness of God — Neh. ix. 17, Ps. 
xl. 11. Man is born in sin — Ps. Ii. 5. The whole duty of 
man — Ecc. xii. 13. Ministers should be pure — Isa. Iii. 11, 
Lev. xxi. 6. Miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost — Joel ii. 
28. The sin of murder — Deut. v. 17. The new birth — 
Ezek. xxxvi. 26, Jer. xxiv. 7. Ofienses against the Holy 
Ghost — Isa. Ixiii. 10. Pardon of sin — Isa. i. 8, Jer xxxi. 
34. Outward purifications insufiicient — Job ix. 30, Jer. ii. 



294 THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF RELIGION 

22. Patience and submission — Isa. liii. 7. God is tlie 
author of peace — Ps. cxlvii. 14 ; and bestows peace on those 
who obey him — Lev. xxvi. 6. The Holy Ghost appoints 
and commissions ministers — Isa. xlviii. 16. God is to be 
praised — 2 Samuel xxii. 4; and glorified — Ps. xxii. 26. 
Prayer is commanded — Isa. Iv. 6 ; is to be offered to God — 
Ps. V. 2 ; and God hears it — Ps. x. 17 ; and answers it — Ps. 
xcix. 6, Isa. Iviii. 9. The heart is lifted up in prayer — Lam. 
iii. 41 ; and poured out — Ps. Ixii. 8 ; and the soul is poured 
out — 1 Samuel i. 15. Calling on the name of the Lord — 
Gen. xii. 8; and calling upon God — Ps. xxvii. 7. Draw- 
ing near to God — Ps. Ixxiii. 28. Public prayer is accepta- 
ble to God — Isa. Ivi. 7. God promises to hear public 
prayer — 2 Chron. vii. 14-16; and bless it — Ex. xx. 24. 
The sin of pride — Proy. xxiv. 4. It is hateful to God — 
Prov. vi. 16. God is the only sure protection — Ps. cxxvii. 
1. His protection is offered to sinners — Job xxii. 23-25. 
He protects the oppressed — Ps. ix. 9 ; and the Church — Ps. 
Ixxxiv. 3. God's care is over his works — Ps. cxlv. 9. His 
providence is over his creatures — Neh. ix. 6. The special 
preservation of saints — Ps. xxxvii. 28. The punishment 
of the wicked is of God — Lev. xxvi. 18. He punishes sin — 
Lam. iii. 39. Rebellion against God — Num. xiv. 19. It 
provokes God — ^Num. xiii. 30. God redeems from all ini- 
quity — Ps. cxxx. 8 ; and from all evil — Gen. xlviii. 16 ; 
and from death — Hosea xiii. 14. Eepentance is by the 
operation of the Holy Ghost — Zech. xii. 10. The long-suf- 
fering of God leads to it — Gen. vi. 3. The chastisements 
of God should lead to it — 1 Kings viii. 47. Shame and 
confusion in repentance — Ezra ix. 6-15, Jer. xxxi. 19. Re- 
pentance leads to prayer — 1 Kings viii. 33 ; and to conver- 
sion — 2 Chron. vi. 26. Exhortations to repentance — Ezek. 
xiv. 6, xviii. 30. The resurrection of Christ — Ps. xvi. 10, 
Isa. xxvi. 19. It was to fulfill the Old Testament Scrip- 



IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 295 

tures — ^Luke xxiv. 45, 46. The resurrection a doctrine of 
the Old Testament — Job xix. 26, Ps. xlix. 15, Isa. xxvi. 19. 
The saints will rise to life eternal — Dan. xii. 2. The wicked 
will rise to everlasting contempt — Dan. xii. 2. Eevenge 
forbidden — Lev. xix. 18 ; it proceeds from a spiteful 
heart — Ezek. xxv. 15. Instead of taking revenge, we 
should trust in God — Prov. xx. 22. Reviling and re- 
proaching — Ps. Ixxiv. 22, Zeph. ii. 8. The redeemed behold 
the face of God — Ps. xvii. 15. God gives riches — 1 Samuel 
ii. 7, Ecc. V. 19; but riches are temporary — Prov. xxvii. 
74 ; and uncertain — Ecc. iv. 8 ; and unsatisfying — Ecc. v. 
10; and fleeting — Prov. xxiii. 5; and perishable — Jer. 
xlviii. 86 ; and often engender pride — Ezek. xxviii. 5 ; and 
forgetfulness of God — Deut. viii. 13; and forsaking of 
God — Deut. xxxii. 15. They produce an overbearing 
spirit — Prov. xviii. 32 ; and lead to violence — Mic. vi. 12 ; 
and bring trouble — Prov. 'xv. 27; and more than forty 
other wholesome teachings on the subject of riches might 
be referred to. Righteousness is obedience to God's law— 
Deut. vi. 25. God loves it — Ps. xi. 7 ; and looks for it — 
Isa. V. 7. The Lord is our righteousness — Jer. xxiii. 6. 
The righteousness of God — ^Ps. vii. 9, Ixxi. 19. It is be- 
yond comprehension — Ps. Ixxi. 15; and is everlasting — 
Ps. cxi. 3. The Sabbath — Gen. ii. 3 ; grounds of it — Gen. 
ii. 2, Ex. XX. 9, 10; to be observed — Neh. x. 31, Jer. xvii. 21. 
The saints are compared to the sun — Judges v. 31 ; and to 
light — Dan. xii. 3 ; and to gold — Lam. iv. 2, Job xxiii. 10. 
Salvation is of God — Ps. iii. 8 ; and by Christ — Isa. Ixiii. 
9 ; and by Christ alone — Isa. xlv. 21, 22, lix. 16. Salvation 
is for the Gentiles — Isa. xlv. 22 ; it is of mercy — Ps. vi. 4 ; 
and is far from the wicked — Ps. cxix. 155, Isa. lix. 11. 
Sanctification — Ps. iv. 3 ; effected by God — Ezek. xxxvii. 
38. Influence of Satan — ^Job i. 6. Self-delusion — Ps. 
xlix. 18. Self-denial— Gen. xiii. 9, Dan. v. 16, 17. Self- 



296 THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF RELIGION 

examination — Jer. xvii. 9. Self-rigliteousness — Prov. xxx. 
12 ; warning against it — Deut. ix. 4. Self-will — 2 Chron. 
XXX. 8 ; wickedness of it — 1 Samuel, xv. 23 ; God knows 
it — Isa. xlviii. 4; its punishment — Deut. xxi. 21, Prov. 
xxix. 1. Sin — Gen. viii. 21 ; came by Adam — Gen. iii. 
6. All men born in sin — Ps. li. 5, Gen. v. 3. No man 
naturally without sin — 1 Kings viii. 40. Man cannot, 
cleanse himself of it — Job ix. 30, Jer. ii. 22. No- man can 
atone for sin^ — Mic. vi. 7. The guilt of attempting to con- 
ceal it — Job xxxi. 33. And there are more than one 
hundred other passages respecting it. National sin — Isa. i. 
5, Jer. V. 1-5 ; often caused by prosperity — Deut. xxxii. 15, 
Ezek. xxviii. 5. The devil tempts us — 1 Chron. xxi. 1. Temp- 
tation comes from covetousness — Prov. xxx. 9. Theft is an 
abomination — Jer. ii. 7-10 ; and includes fraud in general — 
Lev. xix. 13. The Trinity— Ex. xx. 2. Trust in God-— 
Ps. Ixv. 5, Prov. xiv. 26; it should be with the whole 
heart — Prov. iii. 5. Exhortations to trust in God — Ps. iv. 
5, cxv. 9-11. God is a God of truth — Deut. xxxii. 4, Ps. 
xxxi. 5. We should serve God in truth — Joshua xxi v. 14, 

1 Samuel xii. 24. Vows to be voluntary — Deut. xxiii. 21, 
22 ; to be performed faithfully — Num. xxx. 2. Christians 
are in warfare with the devil — Gen. iii. 15 ; compare with 

2 Cor. ii. 11, Eph. vi. 12. Watchfulness required in min- 
isters — Ezek. iii. 17, Isa. Ixii. 6. The wicked are compared 
to abominable branches — Isa. xiv. 19 ; to ashes under feet — 
Mal. iv. 3 ; to beasts — Ps. xlix. 12 ; to the blind — Zeph. i. 
17 ; to briers and thorns — Isa. Iv. 13, etc. Keligious zeal — 
Ps. Ixix. 9 ; godly sorrow leads to it — cxix. 139 ; compare 
with 2 Cor. vii. 10, 11. It is sometimes misdirected — 2 
Samuel xxi. 2, etc. 

Thus I have quoted about four hundred passages of Old 
Testament Scripture, on nearly three hundred different sub- 
jects of Christian morals and religion ; and it will probably 



IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 297 

be conceded that they cover all the ground of religion and 
ethics occupied in ail revelation. The subjects in their 
various phases and modifications could be added to by 
hundreds more, if necessary, and the quotations supporting 
them could be doubled, trebled, or quadrupled. Indeed, I 
know of nothing pertaining to religion or morals which may 
not be proved by the Old Testament. 

And yet, notwithstanding these teachings, numerous as 
they are, they are still more enlarged and elaborated in the 
New Testament, though no new principle, tenet, or doctrine 
is added. Any subject is susceptible of indefinite elab- 
oration. 

How, then, do men tell us that " Christianity " — some- 
thing difierent from the religion taught in the Old Testa- 
ment — was set up anew by the Saviour at the time of his 
advent ? It is a mistake— both great and injurious. 



298 IDEA OF TWO RELIGIONS TESTED. 



CHAPTER XLIV. 

THE IDEA OF TWO RELIGIONS, WITH THEIR SUPPOSED 
"contrast" and DIFFERENCES, TESTED; AND WHAT IS 
" PECULIAR " TO CHRISTIANITY EXAMINED. ^ 

We are frequently taught that there are two religions — 
the Jewish and the Christian. Sometimes they are called 
the law, and the gospel, and sometimes distinguished by 
other names. They are held to be two different and dis- 
tinct religious systems. When Christ came, we are told, he 
set up the Christian religion, not only in contradistinction, 
but in opposition to the Jewish religion. 

The particular point which I wish to bring forward and 
controvert in this chapter — doctrine which I have been 
taught all my life, but which of late years I have utterly 
disbelieved — is now lying before me, in various forms of 
teaching, in not less than ten or twenty " standard " authors. 
I choose to quote from Coleman's Ancient Christianity Ex- 
emplified, merely because I find it there in a succinct and 
comprehensive form, where I can state it with less volume 
of quotation than in many others. Mr. Coleman is a highly 
respectable divine, who has paid a good deal of attention 
to early Christianity, having written several works of con- 
siderable size on the subject. 

On page 91, he says: "The grand characteristic of the 
Christian religion, in distinction from the Jewish — of the 



IDEA OF TWO RELIGIONS TESTED. 299 

religion of the New Testament contrasted with that of the 
Old Testament — was, that it utterly excluded all idea 
of a mediating priesthood in the worship of God." 

Here two things are to be noted : First, the two religions 
are distinct : the Jewish religion is one, the Christian relig- 
ion is another. They stand '^ contrasted ^^ to each other. 
Secondly, the principal ^' distinction^^ is, that the Jewish 
had a mediating priesthood, which was wholly excluded 
from the Christian religion. Thus, he says, " the new and 
nobler order of the Christian dispensation began." 

In the first place, to suppose two systems of religion 
which contrast with each other, w^hich are distinct from 
each other, is to suppose that one or both are false. Both 
cannot be supposed to be true. Religion, revealed or uu- 
revealed, to be triiCy is the practical knowledge and exem- 
plification of the relation actually subsisting between God 
and man. Neither revelation nor any thing else can make 
that relation difierent from what it is. Two religions, 
distinct from each other — the one with, and the other with- 
out, a mediating priesthood — is both a contradiction and an 
absurdity, unless you suppose one to be false. 

But is there, as simple matter of fact, any difference in 
the MEDIATING PRIESTHOOD of the religion before and 
after the coming of Christ? We are not now inquiring 
how well or how ill any certain persons who lived in the 
Saviour's time, or at any other particular time, may have 
imderstood their own religion. That the Scriptures have 
been very much misread, and true religion very much 
misunderstood at times, is well known. That is one thing. 
The religion known to the Scriptures, since the time of 
Abraham at least, is written. 

It will not be denied, I presume, that the Christ of Chris- 
tianity, of our religion — ^the Mediator — occupied the same 
position in religion before as after his personal appearance. 



300 IDEA OF TWO RELIGIONS TESTED. 

Surely there are no religious doctrines in all revelation 
which are not based directly and solely on Christ. ' They are 
not based on some indefinite Christ, but on the Son of Mary, 
the Son of God. Surely his Saviourship did not begin at 
the time of his human advent. To Abel, Noah, Abraham, 
and Elijah, he was a Saviour in every respect, as he is now. 
There is not, nor will there ever be, a saved sinner, in what- 
ever age of the world he may have lived, who will not be 
indebted, in precisely the same way, and to the same extent, 
to Christ, as any other saved sinner. Christ, and no one else, 
was his mediating priest. Men write sometimes as if the 
personal coming of Christ was the origin of his being, or the 
commencement of his Messiahship. It was the peculiar time 
of his Emmanuelship, but certainly not of his Messiahship. 

Then, if he exercised the functions of a mediating priest- 
hood in the salvation of any one man, he did the same thing 
in the salvation of all saved men in any age. 

And then the Jewish religion knew of no such " medi- 
ating priesthood '' as is alluded to by Mr. Coleman. Christ 
was their only Priest and Mediator. 

Then what sort of priests were those spoken of in the Old 
Testament ? In common parlance, the office they held was 
called priest ; but surely any one then was as much mis- 
taken as Mr. Coleman is now, if he supposed them to be 
the priests really mediating between God and man. This 
office is, and always was, discharged by Christ alone. But 
as the Priest of religion had not then made himself visible 
to man, it was made a part of the prudential economy of 
God to pre-represent, to teach beforehand, or to teach in a 
practical way, the mediating work of the true and only 
Priest, by means of men, using them instrumentally, or sym- 
bolically, to teach, and only to teach, such things in regard 
to the Priest as were afterward taught more plainly by dif- 
ferent means. 



IDEA OF TWO RELIGIONS TESTED. 801 

All that these men-priests did was to act the forms and 
exhibit to the eye the appearances of mediating. It was 
only a means of teaching the reality of a priesthood. They 
had no more the functions of priesthood than a moot-court 
has the functions of judiciary. It wa^ a mode of teaching 
Chist But to have continued this mode of teaching after 
the coming of Christ, would have been both meaningless 
and absurd. 

There was therefore here no change in religion, nor in- 
the mediating priesthood at all, but merely a change in the 
mode of teaching one important Christian doctrine. Before 
Christ and his atoning acts were visible, the thing must 
needs be taught in some other way, or not be taught at all. 
But surely the religious doctrine remained the same. 

On page 99, Mr. Coleman gives us what he calls the 
" Doctrinal peculiarities of the Christian system." " Under 
this head," he says, " we propose merely to specify some of 
the leading characteristics of the Christian system, as a new 
and distinct form of religion." 

There is at least no misunderstanding of the author's 
meaning here. Christianity is " a new and distinct form of 
religion " from that of the Old Testament. 

The first peculiarity of this new form of religion^ he says, 
was that "this system presents the only true form of a 
Church. The Jews had no distinct organization which 
could with propriety be denominated a Church ; much less 
is any association under other forms of religion entitled to 
this appellation." 

I do not see how the author himself, or any one else, 
could object to a direct contradiction of this statement. 
All men will allow that — 1st. The Jev^rs, before this time, had 
a personal and distinct Church-membership. 2d. These 
m<3mbers, whether native Israelites or not, were all person- 
ally and individually initiated. 3d. They were personally 



802 IDEA OF TWO RELIGIONS TESTED. 

responsible to the ecclesiastical authorities for good be- 
havior, and on default, were liable to excommunication. 
4th. They met in congregations on the Sabbath, for the 
worship of God, according to the Scriptures. 5th. Their 
worship consisted in reading publicly the word of God, 
singing solemn hymns of praise to God, public prayers, and 
preaching. 6th. These public services were conducted 
by regular Church -officers, distinct from the laity. 7th, 
Among these worshipers were at least some of the most 
holy and pious men and women of whom we have any 
account in human history. 8th. Their worship was recog- 
nized and approved of God. 

Now, if that does not constitute a Church, then we have 
none now ; for there is nothing now existing among men 
which has either any higher or any other marks of a Church 
than this. 

^'Secondly. The Christian Church has always been distin- 
guished for its veneration of the Holy Scriptures. The 
reading and exposition of them has, from the beginning, 
been an important part of Christian worship. All the in- 
structions and exhortations of the preacher have been drawn 
from this source." 

To this I reply, that however much on this point may be 
predicated of Christians since Christ, it is well known to all 
men of reading, that the Holy Scriptures were never held 
in higher veneration by any living people than by the Jews 
before Christ. Mr. Watson — Theological Institutes, p. 80 — 
explains and proves at considerable length this high vene- 
ration for Scripture ; and he quotes from Philo, Josephus, 
and Eusebius, on the subject. Indeed, the high sacredness 
in which the Scriptures were held by these people, is a most 
prominent characteristic of them. In the regular Sabbath- 
day worship they were always read, with scrupulous exact- 
ness. 



IDEA OF TWO RELIGIONS TESTED. 303 

As for " its veneration of the Holy Scriptures," therefore, 
being a peculiarity of what he calls Christianity — that is, of 
the Church since the Advent — it is well known, and palpably 
known, that the fact stated is not true ; it has not one word 
of reliable history to support it, but is contradicted by all 
the reliable history, both in and out of Scripture. 

^'Thirdly, The doctrine of the Trinity, and of the divin- 
ity of Christ, are the distinguishing characteristics of the 
Christian system." 

Understanding him to mean that this distinguishes Chris- 
tians since Christ from Jews previously, I am compelled to 
say that he is not only wholly but egregiously mistaken. 
The statement is wildly and notoriously in the face of truth ; 
and I appeal to the Scriptures. 

"His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the 
Mighty God, the Prince of Peace "— Isa. ix. 6. " He shall be 
called THE Lord our Righteousness " — Jer. xxiii. 6. " The 
voice of him that crieth in the wilderness. Prepare ye the 
way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for 
our God" — Isa. xl. 3. And I have now lying before me 
more than forty selected passages from the Old Testament, 
proving not only the divinity of Christ, but some of them 
proving that this doctrine was well understood by many of 
the Old Testament saints. The word Trinity does not occur 
in Scripture, I believe ; it results from the divinity of the 
Holy Ghost, and of Christ, considered in connection with 
the oneness of God. This is found in many places in the 
Old Testament. See Ex. xvii. 7, Num. xii. 6, Isa. vi. 3, Ps. 
Ixxviii. 17-21, etc. 

Most assuredly the doctrine that we call Trinity is not 
peculiar to the post-Messianic period of the Church. 

'^Fourthly, It is peculiar to the Christian religion that all 
people take part in their religious services." 

No, sir! by no means. Worship before the time of 



304 IDEA OF TWO RELIGIONS TESTED. 

Clirist was eminently popular — perhaps as much so, compar- 
atively, as since. At that time there were, in Jerusalem 
alone, not less than four hundred places of popular congre- 
gational worship ; and there were also churches — commonly 
called synagogues — all over the country, wherever there 
were Jews — that is, wherever there w^ere religious people. 
This Sabbath-day, congregational worship, was similar to 
that observed by us now. It varied then a great deal in 
different times and places, and in the notions and habits of 
the people, as it does now ; but there is no radical differ- 
ence. Will any man say that personal, individual w^orship 
was not recognized and enjoined in the Church before the 
coming of Christ ? The statement would and does contra- 
dict one of the most plain and notorious truths seen upon 
the face of the Old Testament. 

'^Fifthly, It is the peculiar privilege of the Christian that 
he may worship God, not at some appointed place, and at 
stated seasons, but at all times, and in every place." 

I marvel that such teaching passes unrebuked for a single 
day. It is no less than a plain contradiction of what every- 
body knows to be true. It is notorious that the Jews before 
Christ enjoyed generally — at least so far as the Church was 
concerned — all the religious privileges and advantages 
which are here attributed to " Christians " by Mr. Coleman. 

It is not written in the Scriptures, either in terms or by 
any fair inference, that the worshipers of God before 
Christ were exclusively confined in their worship to "some 
appointed place," or to some " stated season ;" but on the 
contrary, it is as plainly and fully written as it is that men 
worship at all, that they worshiped publicly on every 
Sabbath-day, and that private and family worship were both 
enjoined and practiced. And as to the places of worship, 
we well know that they erected houses for this purpose 
without restriction, here, there, and everywhere, as the 



IDEA OF TWO RELIGIONS TESTED. 805 

wishes or convenience of the people required. It may be 
read in all Palestinean history, in Home, Watson, etc., that 
the Church had about four hundred such places of worship 
in the city of Jerusalem alone, as before stated ; and that 
all over Palestine, and everywhere else in other countries, 
wherever needed, such places of worship were seen in 
abundance. 

It is surprising that Mr. Coleman had not read of the 
pious habits of Daniel, so far, at least, as to know whether 
he did not worship God " in his chamber," when he kneeled 
upon his knees three times a day and prayed and gave 
thanks before his God, as he did aforetime. And it is 
remarkable indeed, that he had not read of hundreds of 
other instances of Jews ^Yorshiping God, not at some ap- 
pointed place, but where they chose, and without restraint. 

But, at the same time that the Church in this period 
enjoyed the full privilege of worshiping God when and 
where they chose — privately, socially, in families, or congre- 
gations; and that their religion required this, it is also 
true — as the same thing is true now — that generally, if not 
always, they had extraordinary times and places for more 
general convocation. There were com^mon, uncommon, 
occasional, and annual seasons of worship ; but this is pecu- 
liar to no period of the Church, and to no country. Worship 
was not confined to "some appointed place," or to "stated 
seasons." There is nothing that I know of from which we 
have a right to presume that out-door preaching was 
objected to by even the mistaken zealots in the times of the 
prophets, of John the Baptist, or of Christ. 

Indeed, I know of nothing that could be conceived and 
written more openly at war with historic truth than these 
" peculiarities " of Dr. Coleman. They originate wholly in 
the fancy and imagination of mistaken theologians. But 
so wide-spread is this general error of the broad "Jis- 



806 IDEA OF TWO RELIGIONS TESTED. 

tinction^^ and ^' contrast'^ between "Jewish religion" and 
" Christian religion/' that preachers and people, by the thou- 
sands, read such perversions of truth and theology as I 
have here quoted from Dr. Coleman, and think it is all 
right ! The elder teach it to the younger, and the preachers 
teach it to the people ! 

May be I appear too dogmatical just here. I am aware 
my expressions are strong and positive ; but how could they 
be otherwise ? 



WAS REVEALED RELIGION RESTRICTED? 307 



CHAPTER XLV. 

WAS REVEALED RELIGION EVER RESTRICTED TO ANY 
PARTICULAR PEOPLE? 

Whether religion, before the time of Christ, was or was 
not confined, by divine law, to the Jews, depends entirely 
upon what is meant by " the Jews." If by Jews you mean 
strictly the lineal descendants of Abraham, through Jacob, 
it is not by any means true that religion was ever confined, 
or attempted to be confined, to them in any way, either gen- 
erally or particularly. But if by Jews you mean the 
common name given to the Church, then it is a simple 
truism that religion was confined to religious people. Before 
the time of Christ, the Church — religious people — were 
called by the general name of Jews. And so before the 
time of Christ, religion was confined to the Church, as it is 
now. 

There are plain, philosophic reasons why the peculiar 
course of Providence was pursued toward a single family ; 
for their partial social exclusion from others for a long 
time ; for the bondage in Egypt ; the deliverance, etc. But 
there never were any reasons why religion should be con- 
fined to such nation ; and in fact, it never was. The policy 
was, to instruct a particular people, by an extraordinary 
providence, in the doctrines and precepts of religion ; but 
certainly not to prevent others from coming among them 
and receiving instruction too, and being religious likewise. 



308 WAS REVEALED RELIGION EVER 

The entire plan of the calling of Abraham, the special 
revelations made to his descendants, together with all that 
is commonly called the Jewish economy — all, from first to 
last, was certainly not by any means intended to confine the 
true religion to these particular people and their lineal pos- 
terity ; but on the contrary, the design of the whole most 
assuredly was, to extend religion throughout mankind as 
early, and as far, and wide as possible. Surely God has 
never restricted the spread of religion. The Jewish people 
w^ere raised up to become the instruments of spreading re- 
ligion over the wide earth. 

The doors of the Church were always open wide, and on 
every side, and everybody, without restriction, let, or hinder- 
ance, was invited to come in and be religious too. It was 
not only the privilege, but the bounden duty, of all men to 
come into the Church and be religious ; and if in the days 
of Moses, or the prophets, or any other days, any persons — 
many or few — declined or refused to come in with the 
people of God, and themselves become people of God, it 
was perverse disobedience for which, and for which alone, 
men are punished. 

If the people of any age of the world — this present, or 
any former age — had done right, had obeyed God, had con- 
formed to his will, according to the light they had, they 
would have become religious, the Church would thus have 
been extended over them, and they would thus have become 
Jews, Christians, proselytes, pious or religious people, with 
whatever adventitious or denominational designation you 
may choose to give them. By obeying God, they became 
God's people. 

The address of Moses to Hobab, the Midianite — Num. x. 
29, " Come thou with us and we will do thee good, for the 
Lord hath spoken good concerning Israel"— is a standing, 
implied proclamation of the Almighty, speaking from within 



BESTRICTED TO ANY PEOPLE? 309 

the Church, and addressed to all the world, and is alike 
applicable to all people, all times, all places, and all cir- 
cumstances. 

In the earlier history of the Israelitish Church, there 
were prudential reasons why the power of the Church should 
be concentrated and directed inward mostly, so as to ope- 
rate chiefly upon its own focal center. This was necessary 
at this early period, in order to spiritualize and intensify 
itself, that it might be prepared to put on a more aggressive 
character in the future ; but there never could be a time 
when it would be either prudent or proper to cease the 
natural and universal invitation of religion — "Come and 
go with us." 

And as these early reasons for a partial non-aggressive 
character of the Church ceased to exist gradually, the 
Church became more and more liberal; its evangelical 
labors were directed more and more outward in a missionary 
direction ; and at the time of the apostles, the Church took 
on far more of an aggressive character than it had pre\d- 
ously possessed. But it has not to this day brought itself 
fiiUy up to the high missionary and aggressive ground it is 
destined to occupy. 

And so we find the historic facts to be, from Abraham to 
the present, that the Church has never ceased to cry, " Ho ! 
every one that thirsteth." And in response to this voice of 
reason and invitation, the influx from without has been at 
least considerable, in every age and country, from Moses to 
this day. 

Josephus — ^who was a Jew — tells us that the temple, as a 
place of worship, " ought to be common to all men, because 
God is the common God of all men." 

And moreover, as a matter of historic fact, the Church, 
as far back as we are able to trace it, did always invite all 
men into it. 



810 WAS REVEALED RELIGION RESTRICTED? 

The teaching, then, we so frequently meet with, that the 
" Jewish religion " was confined to a particular people, and 
that the " Christian religion " differed from, and Avas supe- 
rior to it, in that it offered salvation to all men, is a myth, 
a scholastic fancy, without either reason, probability, or 
historic truth to support it. Religion was always confined 
to religious people — to those who associated religiously for 
religious advancement ; and so to the Church. And so it 
was confined to the Jews — if you call the Church by that 
name — or to the Christian Church, if you call it by this. 



SAMENESS OF THE CHURCH. 311 



CHAPTER XLVI. 

THE ESSENTIAL SAMENESS OF THE CHURCH AND OF RE- 
LIGION, NOTWITHSTANDING THE VARIETY IN THE MODES 
OF WORSHIP IN DIFFERENT TIMES AND PLACES. 

Mr. E. Watson — Biblical and Theological Dictionary, 
Article Christianity — says : " The Christian religion was pub- 
lished by its great Author, in Judea, a short time before the 
death of Herod.'' And again : "Although Christianity ori- 
ginated in Judea, it was not long confined within the narrow 
limits of the Holy Land." 

' No, sir ; that is not the proper understanding of it. This 
is the fact, as Mr. Watson himself will not deny : 

The Christian religion — that is, the religion now called by 
the- name of " Christianity " — was published by its great 
Author, to all mankind, in the days of Adam, several 
thousand years before Herod was born. Christianity did 
not "originate in Judea;" it originated in or near the 
garden of Eden ; and about fifteen years after the begin- 
ning of the great spiritual and numerical enlargement of 
the Church under the ministry of the apostles, the Church 
first took the name of " Christian," not in Judea, however, 
but away beyond the borders of Palestine, in Antioch, the 
capital city of Syria, in the north of that country. 

Mr. Watson does injustice to himself, for he himself will 
not object to tlie following very true remarks from Mr. 



812 THE ESSENTIAL SAMENESS OF 

Burkitt, in his Notes on Acts xviii. 26 : " Observe the anti- 
quity of the gospel, or the doctrine of reconciliation by 
Jesus Christ ; it ^vas preached to the patriarchs, and to the 
prophets, to the ancient Israelites. . . . There is 
but one way to salvation, namely, reconciliation with God 
through the blood of Christ ; and this was declared to the 
children of Israel as well as unto us," 

Mr. Watson himself very truly says, that " the Christian 
Church is not ajiother Church, but the very same that was 
before the coming of Christ." Then the religion must be 
the same, of course. 

And also in many, many places— so numerous and so 
notorious that they need not be quoted— Mr. Watson attrib- 
utes to Abel and to all the "Old Testament saints," as he 
calls those eminently pious thousands and millions of those 
ages, the very same religious faith, in theory and practice, 
w^iich he finds in Paul and in all the New Testament saints. 
They were saved— so Mr. Watson teaches— not by works 
which they did, only in the sense that all Christians must 
do works meet for repentance, but in pursuance of the faith 
which they had in the atoning merits of Jesus Christ. 

What do we mean by same, and what by different^ as we 
apply these ideas in describing religion, or the Church? 

There are several senses in which sameness cannot be 
predicated of any one thing at different times, or as it may 
be viewed in different aspects. A man is not, in all senses, 
the same to-day he was yesterday. He is not the^ same in 
age, in experience, in health, in learning, in piety, in bodily 
weight, etc. We say, however, that the man is the same. 
Just so of the Church in different places, and at different 
times. But this is only saying that both men and^ the 
Church present, at different times, a variety in condition 
and circumstances. 

Go to the different portions of the Church to-day, and 



THE CHURCH AND OF RELIGION. 313 

you will find in one place a camp-meeting, in another a 
chaplaincy to Congress, or in the arm.y ; in another a congre- 
gational meeting on Sunday morning, here a synod, there a 
class-meeting, an ecclesiastical court, or a Sunday-school; 
here you will find a bishop performing high mass, and there 
a " confirmation " declared to be necessary to Church-mem- 
bership : these will tell you that nothing short of immersion 
in water will sufiice for baptism ; while those use only a 
basin of water. And so, as every one will see at once, the 
variety is endless, in a hundred different things. And then 
if you go back only a hundred or five hundred years, you 
find other varieties, and in other periods, others, etc. And 
yet, all this is the saine Church. Some of it, no doubt, is 
error and superstition. Sometimes you see the Protestants 
urged on by Luther ; sometimes the king-Church of Henry 
VIII. ; and again. Pope Alexander treading on the neck of 
Emperor Frederick. Farther back you see Paul preaching 
at Athens ; and again, as much deluded as many others 
have been before and since, going with letters to Damascus, 
to regulate Church matters away up there; and farther 
back you find the Saviour himself preaching to the multi- 
tudes, sometimes in the churches, and sometimes on the hill- 
side ; and so you find John the Baptist, and Zechariah, and 
Malachi, and Isaiah, and Moses, and Noah, and Abel. 

And as nearly as human language can define an idea, it 
is all Church. Much of the things done, were awkwardly 
done ; much was the result of ignorance and misreading of 
the Scriptures ; and much Avas positively injurious to relig- 
ion. If any man shall say that these "Jews," or those 
other worshipers were not a Church, because some of them 
were mistaken in this, that, and the other thing, then I 
reply that he proves too much, for he proves that there has 
Jiever been a Church. These are not to be counted out, 
because they lived in the wrong age of the world ; nor are 



314 THE ESSENTIAL SAMENESS OF 

those to be counted m, because they lived in the right age ; 
neither are these to be excluded because they were called 
" Jews," nor are those to be included because they were 
called " Christians," either at "Antioch " or anywhere else. 
" God is no respecter of persons ; but in every nation, he 
that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with 
him." 

Some of these Church varieties are highly necessary. To 
avoid them would be to have a world that would need no 
Church. There were circumstances connected with the 
Church before the flood, which could not have obtained at a 
later period ; and there are those in the life and times of 
Noah, and in the Abrahamic period, in the time of the 
bondage, in the journey in the wilderness, and in the time of 
the kings, which were necessarily peculiar to those periods. 

In all these states of the Church there was the greatest 
conceivable variety in external manners, in many things, 
some of which are noted in the very brief sketches of 
history we have ; but, w^ith rare exceptions, they are lost 
to us. 

And then, in the great and glorious appearing of the Son 
of God himself, in human form, so long prophesied of, 
anticipated, looked forward to, it is easy to see that many 
things pertaining to the externals of worship before, could 
not possibly attach now. 

But still, from the days of the first promise, there have 
been one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God, one plan 
of salvation, one Saviour, and one heaven. 

I insist that the Church, before the days of Christ's 
humanity, was not the mechanical, artificial thing it seems 
to be regarded by many. The world, and the people in it, 
were constitutionally the same then as now ; it was a nat- 
ural world, and the people were natural people ; there was 
no more of an ecclesiastical macJiwe then than now ; men were 



THE CHURCH AND OF RELIGION. 315 

individual men, acting "with motives and prejudices, and 
sound judgment, with good and bad feelings, and present- 
ing all the natural varieties of life which we see now. 
From many writers you would suppose that the Church, for 
fifteen hundred years before the coming of Christ, was 
always exactly the same, that every man acted and thought 
exactly so and so, according to some Scripture remark 
having particular application. But this could not be. If 
the people were natural people, they presented all the vari- 
ety of aspect, and of external form and manners in religion, 
as in every thing else, in different countries, and in differ- 
ent ages, iQ that period of, the world, as well as in this. 

But still, consistent with all this external variety, the 
grand central doctrines of religion remained firm in those 
days, as in these ; and so, also, the association of religious 
persons — ^which is the true, and only true, idea of Church — 
must have been substantially the same. 

And then it might be inquired. In what does consist the 
sameness of the Church ? What makes it the same ? 

The answer is, that sameness in religion necessarily in- 
sures sameness in the Church, because the Church is the 
religious association of religious persons. Those who 
believe in the Koran, or any other form of idolatry, or 
Jews who reject Christ, or any other persons who do not 
receive the Scriptures as revelation, could not by possibility 
associate in worship, for religious enlargement, with those 
who do thus believe. 

It must be remembered that revelation is not only be- 
lieved to be the true religion, for that might be said of the 
Mormon religion ; but this argument assumes that it is the 
true religion; hence the social and spiritual effect it pro- 
duces ; and hence the sameness of the Church. 

And not only so, but the Christian of to-day brings his 
religion all along down through the Old Testament facts 



316 SAMENESS OF THE CHURCH. 

and principles ; he brings the Christ of prophecy and Jesus 
of Nazareth right together, and unites them in one atoning, 
bleeding, mediating Saviour. 

If Daniel had lived long enough, and maintained his 
faith, he would have embraced Jesus Christ face to face ; 
and then if he had lived still longer, he would have looked 
hack on his life and death, and would have commemorated 
his sacrificial atonement. But, living as he did, on only 
one chronological side of Christ, he could only look upon 
him in worship, in prospect. 

Religion must be historical, because the w^orld is chrono- 
logical ; and the Christian, therefore — so called — whose re- 
ligion does not run back through the entire Old Testament, 
embracing every one of its principles, is not a Christian ; his 
religion is not known to divine revelation. Christ — the 
only Christ known to religion — was slain from the founda- 
tion of the world ; he did not originate — begin to be the 
Saviour in the days of the apostles, nor " in Judea," as Mr. 
Watson says. The Christology of religion pertained as 
much to the days of Moses as to those of Paul ; the religion 
of Old and New Testament saints pertains equally and 
alike to both periods, though their lives do not. 

And so we speak of two men as having the same religion, 
whether they lived both before Christ, or one before and one 
after, or both after. 

And yet, Dr. Doddridge tells us. Par. Rom. ii. 25, that 
" the being a Jew, if he be truly a good man, will give him 
many advantages for becoming a Christian." 

That is to say, a man whose religion embraces every doc- 
trine and precept revealed in the Bible, and who practices 
them daily, possesses many advantages thereby " for becoming 
a Christian ! '' A truly good man, who receives in heart, 
life,' and daily experience, the entire revealed religion, has 
still to become a Christian! And that passes for theology! 



CHRISTIANS BEFORE AND AFTER CHRIST. 317 



CHAPTER SLVII. 

A VIEW OF THE RELIGIOUS CONDITION OF THE SAME IN- 
DIVIDUAL CHRISTIAN MEN WHO LIVED IN PALESTINE, 
BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST. 

There were in the Churcli many persons of full age, at 
the birth of Christ, who lived twenty or thirty years into 
the Christian Church, as it is called. Let us notice the life 
and experience of one of these men. 

He was a Jew, and was both religious and pious. He 
understood the Scriptures as they were, and not as they 
were misunderstood by many. His religion was true Ju- 
daism, according to all the definitions and understanding. 
Then he expected the Messiah, and could but carry about 
him a heart throbbing with expectation that he might him- 
self, with his own eyes, see the long, long looked-for Emman- 
uel. He hears the preaching of John the Baptist, and may 
have had some knowledge of the early life of Jesus. Many 
had strong faith in his Messiahship from his infancy. He 
now hears the Saviour preach, and sees the miracles which 
he did. Maybe he was one of the twelve, or one of the 
seventy. He believed in him. Like the best of the apos- 
tles, his faith may have wavered at the crucifixion, but the 
resurrection set him right. He believed, and believing, re- 
joiced in him. 

He saw^ it is true, manv of his brethren who would not 



818 CHRISTIANS BEFORE AND AFTER CHRIST. 

believe; who turned away and said, Away with him. And 
he saw others who wavered in their faith still, but he re- 
mained steadfast. Belief in Christ was comfort to his soul. 
And so he grew in grace as he grew in years. He heard 
Paul preach, and believed him, and sorrowed over the un- 
belief of his brethren. He heard of Peter's preaching to 
Cornelius, and saw the Gentiles coming into the Church 
much more numerously than of old, when he was a young 
man, and previously. He heard Peter's explanation, and 
said, "Now I understand things better than I did." Now 
this man is eighty years old, and the apostles and their 
brethren have been preaching twenty-five or thirty years. 

Now, who will say that this man has changed his religion? 
And who will say he is not a Christian? 

And, I ask, how would he have understood such language 
from St. Paul, as Dr. Doddridge puts into the mouth of that 
apostle, in his Paraphrase of Eom. ii. 25 — "Your being a 
Jew, and a good man, has given you many advantages for 
becoming a Christian"? The question would naturally 
arise in his mind, When did he become a Christian? He 
was converted to the faith of the Scriptures, in the true 
sense of evangelical conversion, when he was eighteen or 
twenty years old, before Jesus was born. He then became a 
Christian, if he ever did, and he has remained firm in the 
faith. He was a Christian at the age of fifteen or twenty, 
in the same sense he is now ; and he is certainly now a 
Christian, in the highest evangelical sense. 

And this, I presume, is the only kind of Christianity 
which the apostles had. Paul was converted at a later 
period. Of the time of the conversion of the other apostles, 
w^e are not particularly informed. 

I ask Dr. Doddridge if divine grace can convert a man 
from the faith of the Scriptures, and the religion taught 
there, to some other faith found also in the Scriptures? 



CHRISTIANS BEFORE AND AFTER CHRIST. 319 

The case of this man was the case of thousands, and 
might to have been the case with every man and woman in 
the Church, and in the world, at that time; yea, and at 
every other time. 

How well this man understood the theology of Christ's 
work and office, in all points, is another question. I under- 
stand that every Christian man improves, or ought to im- 
prove, in his knowledge of the ways of God to man as he 
grows older. But this improvement in theological knowl- 
edge does not imply a change in religion; or, if so, then 
every Christian changes his religion every day. 

This man died at the age of eighty years, firm in the faith 
of the Church, which was taught him by his parents and by 
the preachers, in the days of his boyhood and of his youth. 
His was true Judaism — not the mistaken views of religion 
entertained by many of his brethren. He understands well 
that his Church, which was formerly called Jewish, is now 
called Christian ; but this he well knows is a mere change 
in the name of the same thing. 

It was unfortunately the case in those days that there was 
great lack of piety as well as sound theological knowledge 
in the Church, and especially among the ruling officials. The 
piety was among the masses, with some exceptions. Many 
of the priests and other preachers were pious, but the San- 
hedrim was mainly corrupt. 

Now, I summon those pious men and women — ^hundreds, 
thousands, or most probably hundreds of thousands, as the 
case may have been — ^who were soundly converted to God 
before Jesus was born, or before he entered upon his min- 
istry, and who continued to live and to enjoy religion unin- 
terruptedly away twenty or thirty years or more, into what 
is called the apostolic Church, and I ask them when they 
became Christians, according to the theology of Doddridge, 
Dick, Watson, and others. They will tell you that that is 



320 CHRISTIANS BEFORE AND AFTER CHRIST. 

something they know nothing about. At their earliest recol- 
lection they received religious instruction from their parents, 
from ministers, and other pious persons. In humble sub- 
mission to those teachings, they were converted in their youth 
to an experimental knowledge of the truth as it is in Christ — 
though Messiah was then in prospect, and they merely con- 
tinued in the same faith, and in the same Church, enjoying 
the same religion. Some of them heard John preach, and 
were convinced that the time of Christ was then present. 
Some of them saw Christ personally, and heard him preach ; 
and they all searched the Scriptures and found that these 
things were so. They neither saw nor heard of any change 
in religion, or in Church-relationship ; nor did the necessity 
or propriety of any such changes ever occur to them. They 
found themselves in Church-fellowship with Paul, and Cor- 
nelius, and thousands of others, because they were converted, 
either in the Church or out of it, and then came in. I ask 
them if Paul was not a Church-member from youth ; and 
they reply, "Ah, yes, he was nominally a member of the 
Church, but like many others, he was a wicked, uncon- 
verted man, until the power of truth overtook him on his 
way to Damascus.'' I ask them why they have ceased to 
circumcise their children ; and they reply, ^^ Because Christ 
has comey 

In regard to the sacraments, they explain, that the mode 
of solemnizing them before the death of Christ was rational, 
intelligible, and very full of .comfort. It pointed forward to 
some future period, when the Christ of Scripture would 
appear; but when this appearance takes place, this form 
must needs discontinue. But in what way the sacraments 
w^ould be administered after this, they did not know. They 
saw, however, that before Christ closed his visible work, he 
prescribed the manner in which this w^ould be done in all 
future time. These new modes of performing the sacraments, 



CHRISTIANS BEFORE AND AFTER CHRIST. 321 

they accept as of divine direction from the Saviour; while 
at the same time they see in them great significancy and 
naturalness. As to the sacraments themselves, they remain 
the same they always were. 

And so they saw no changes either in religion, or Church- 
usage, or Church-polity, except such as the mere coming of 
the Saviour makes necessary. These changes in the external 
modes of performing some of the rites of religion, are ren- 
dered naturally necessary, in order that the Church may 
continue the same, and religion be unchanged. 

They therefore show you, in the most natural and reason- 
able way conceivable, how the religion of all the pious men 
in the Church remained firm and unchanged through the 
entire period of the Saviour's ministry and death, and on 
for twenty or forty years into the Church afterward. And 
if they were to hear these modern theologians talking about 
the new Church — the new religion — the primitive Church — 
the origin of Christianity — the religion and Church which 
the Saviour set up — of a Christianity difiering essentially 
from the Church and religion before Christ was born, they 
would tell you that nothing of that sort happened — that 
they never heard of any such things. 

And if you could see the twelve apostles themselves, and 
ask them about that terrible conflict they had, when they 
alone, with perhaps Simeon and Anna, and three or four 
others, had to contend against the whole Jewish people, and 
the world beside, in " setting up " Christianity, in persuad- 
ing the Jews to "renounce their religion," and in "modeling 
their Church after the synagogue," they would tell you that 
these are things they never heard of before. It is a mistake 
— no such things happened. And if you were to show them 
such books as Neander's and Fleetwood's Lives of Christ, 
arid Conybeare and Howson's, Coleman's, Schaff 's, and many 
other Lives of the Apostles, they would say they were works 
11 



322 CHRISTIANS BEFORE AND AFTER CHRIST. 

of fiction, interspersed with some biblical truth ; but as to 
the Church and its religion, they were historic of little or 
nothing that occurred in their days. And St. Paul would 
w^onder why such "false brethren" should so continue to 
misrepresent him. 



GREAT JEWISH APOSTASY. 823 



CHAPTER XLVIII. 

. CONCERNING THE GREAT JEWISH APOSTASY. 

There is a wide-spread impression in the Church that 
the Jews of modern times continue to hold the same religion 
which the Jews held anterior to the coming of Christ ; that 
Jews are Jews, and the Jewish religion is the Jewish religion, 
one and the same, before and after the coming of Christ. 

This doctrine is taught, either in express terms, or by 
plain implication, by many of our best authors. Dr. Dod- 
dridge places the Jews, before and after Christ, in the same 
category, both in their religion and lineal descent. They 
are the successors genealogically, and continue the same 
religion. Speaking of modern Jews, Par. p. 282, Mark xiii. 
20, he says: "For he (God) hath still purposes of love 
toward the seed of Abraham, which shall at length take 
place ; and in the meantime, he will make their continuing 
a distinct people the means of confirming the faith of 
Christians in succeeding ages." And in a foot-note he 
refers to other writings of his own, and to other authors, 
wherein "their coniinning a distinct people" is farther 
illustrated. 

And in other places he clearly assumes that the ancient 
descendants of Jacob have been wonderfully preserved in a 
national distinctness to the present time. As a people line- 
ally descended, and holding the same religion, they are 



S24 CONCERNING THE 

identical with the people now existing and known as 
Jews. 

The Religious Encyclopedia, Article Jews, p. 691, holds 
the same doctrine. It clearly places the Jews before Christ 
and modern Jews in the same category, in respect both of 
religion and natural descent. Speaking of modern Jews, 
the writer says : " Their firm adherence to their religion," 
(meaning the religion of Jews before Christ,) "and being 
dispersed all over the earth, has furnished every age and 
every nation with the strongest arguments for the Christian 
faith." 

Thus it is distinctly aflirmed that modern Jews maintain 
a firm adherence to their religion — meaning the religion of 
the ancient Jewish Church. 

And again it is said, p. 692 : " The modern Jews still 
adhere as closely to the Mosaic dispensation as their dis- 
persed and despised condition will permit them." By dis- 
pensation I presume he means religion, for I cannot see how 
anybody can adhere to a dispensation. 

The language of the Encyclopedia on this point is evi- 
dently copied from the Spectator, No. 495, except the word 
"dispensation." Such a classic writer would hardly be 
guilty of such a blunder. But Mr. Addison has fallen into 
the same error in regard to the identity of the religion of 
the ancient and modern Jews. 

He says : " Their firm adherence to their religion is no 
less remarkable than their number and dispersion, especially 
considering it as persecuted and contemned over the face of 
the whole earth. This is likewise the more remarkable if 
we consider the frequent apostasies of this people, when 
they lived under their kings, in the land of promise, and 
within sight of the temple." 

The error I allude to is here, in the language of Mr. 
Addison, particularly conspicuous and palpable. Alluding 



GREAT JEWISH APOSTASY. 325 

to the frequent apostasies of the Jews in the days of the 
kings, he said it is the more remarkable that ever since they 
should maintain their firm adherence to their religion — their 
ancient religion. Jews before, and Jews after Christ, are 
here placed in the same category, particularly in respect to 
religion. The reader will please to keep his eye upon this 
point. 

Buck's Theological Dictionary, Article Jew^s, holds the 
same doctrine as found in the Spectator, being evidently 
copied from it. 

Mr. Watson, Biblical and Theological Dictionary, Arti- 
cle Jews — Modern — holds the same doctrine, making no 
distinction in the religion of ancient Jews before Christ and 
the people he calls modern Jews; but he describes and 
leaves them in the same category. And in Article Judaism, 
he says: "Their religious worship and character in our 
Saviour's time had become formal and superstitious, and 
such it still continues to be, in a greater or less degree, at 
the present day." Thus supposing the worship and religion 
of ancient and modern Jew^s to be one and the same 
thing. 

Quotations to this effect, and from various authors, could 
be multiplied to almost any extent. Indeed, so common 
have been these teachings, that the prevalent impression is, 
that the Jews of modern times profess the same religion as 
the Jew^s before the Christian era. 

With this notion I join issue directly, and have no doubt 
of being able to show conclusively that no two religions 
ever were more hostile to each other than that of the people 
called Jews, before Christ, and that of the people called 
Jews, after Christ. I hold that the people knovjn as Jews 
since the time of Christy apostatized, not partially, but 
wholly, from the religion they formerly professed, and that they 
set up a religion not before known, but in the highest and open' 



326 CONCERNING THE 

est hostility with their former faith, and that it is this new 
religion which " continues at the present day," and not the 
Jewish religion, as Mr. "Watson affirms. 

That there were individual persons in the Church in that 
day who greatly misunderstood their religion, or who had. 
confused views in regard to it, and were thereby likely to fall 
into gross and fatal errors, is readily admitted. As much 
may be said of this or any other period of the Church. Here 
there are no questions in issue. 

It w^ill not, I presume, be denied by any that — 

First It was a doctrine of the Jewish Church, from the 
days of Moses at least, that the Saviour would appear 
among them in the form of man, and that a belief in this 
prospective, looked-for Saviour was essential to salvation. I 
do not mean that it w^as essential to salvation that any person 
in those days should have had the clear views of the 
Saviour which many Christians have in these. That is not 
the case now. But I mean that the Christ, the Saviour, the 
object of religious belief, was then a cardinal, vital doctrine 
of the revealed religion. And in a more or less confused 
or clear manner, it was the ground, and only ground, of 
religious faith ; that their written religion offered salvation 
to all men upon the condition of belief in a coming Saviour, 
and denied it absolutely on any other conditions. 

Secondly, It' follows then, necessarily, that their written 
and well-understood religion required that whenever the 
Saviour should come, that he be received heartily and 
gladly, and believed in as such. 

Thirdly. The Scriptures did not teach, as the history of 
religion proved, merely hypothetically, in regard to some 
indefinite Saviour, leaving the doctrine of a Saviour at 
loose ends, for every man to think as he might fancy in 
regard to his personality ; but they taught specifically and 
exactly in regard to the identical Son of Mary who did 



GREAT JEWISH APOSTASY. 327 

# 

come. If this identity was not hiown before, it was never- 
theless true, and was known afterward. 

Fourthly, The Christ of the Jewish religion did come in 
conformity with the Scriptures, and according to their pre- 
dictions and the faith of the Church. And after sufficient 
debate and consultation, some of the Jews — not all, but 
whatever may have been the proportion — a great many of 
these same Jews deliberately and finally rejected him, insist- 
ing that he was not the Saviour. 

Now we have, unquestionably, two sorts of Jews, divided 
upon a question of the most vital importance to religion ; 
and we proceed to inquire into the religious status of the two 
parties respectively, the Old Testament Scriptures being the 
base-line of our inquiry. 

And it is apparent and beyond question, that the receiv- 
ing or believing Jews remained firm in the faith of their 
Scriptures. They then believed as they always believed, 
supposing them to have understood their o^n religion. 
They received the Christ in whom they always believed. 
He was their Christ before; he is theirs now. That which 
in the nature of things w^as prospective before, is realized 
now. 

And as to the rejecting Jews, why they denied Christ. 
That placed them in the same relation to religion — the 
religion of the Scriptures — as the same act would placf* 
anybody else at any other time. Suppose one man, a pro- 
fessor of religion, or a thousand, or a million, were to reject 
and deny Christ, deliberately and finally, now ? You would 
say it was apostasy. You would not admit that it was back- 
sliding. Every one would say it was apostasy outright. 

There is no religion kno^vn to revelation that is not based 
wholly and entirely on Jesus Christ, as he is presented both 
in the Old and New Testaments. 

These rejecting Jews, then, are apostates. They aposta- 



328 CONCEKNING THE 

tized wholly ; they repudiated not a part, but the whole of 
their religion; and if they have any religion since, it is 
wholly new, and wholly false. If they still continue to use 
some of the names which have a verbal connection with 
religion, that makes no difference. There is no religion in 
the 7iame of Moses or Abraham, any more than there is 
upon some spot of ground upon which they once stood, or 
some other incident, or all the incidents of their personal 
history. There is no religion known to revelation but 
belief in Christ 

If you take Christ wholly out of the Old Testament, what 
have you left ? You have some history, and some biogra- 
phy, and some other merely verbal things, and some manip- 
ulations which were externally used in worship ; but you 
have left in them nothing, absolutely nothing, which makes 
up true religion. 

Now these apostate Jews exclude Christ wholly from the 
Old Testament ; so they exclude all the true religion of the 
Church which was held previous to that time. To look, or 
profess to look, for some other Christ than the Messiah of 
Scripture, is to look for no Christ. You might as well pred- 
icate Christianity of Mormonism or Mohammedanism. They 
have their Christs. Will any man deny the essential Chris- 
tology of the Old Testament ? And will any man say there 
is any religion of the Old Testament not resting wholly and 
exclusively on Jesus Christ, the veritable, identical Son of 
Mary? 

These apostate Jews might continue to assemble in houses 
on the Sabbath, and call their meetings worship. An infidel 
club in the city of Boston does the same thing. There can 
be no worship where Christ is excluded. 

The particular time at which this apostasy took place can 
make no difference as to its character. If it had occurred 
one hundred or one thousand years before it did, or one 



GREAT JEWISH APOSTASY. 329 

hundred or one thousand years later, it would have been 
the same. Apostasy is the repudiation of one's former re- 
ligion — the renunciation of its essential faith. 

These Jews, then, having renounced every thing that was 
vital in their former religion, apostatized luholly, square out, 
fully, completely. They possessed afterward no more of the 
Jewish faith than Mormons do of the same faith; they 
retained nothing in their religion of their former faith. If 
they continue to circumcise their children, it is no more 
Jewish circumcision than the infliction of any other kind of 
wound ; for their religion required circumcision to abate on the 
coming of the Messiah, to which that rite looked forward ; and 
you cannot look forward to that which is past Moreover, it 
had essential and vital relation to Jesus Christ, the Son of 
Mary, the Logos of God. Surely the mere external act of 
a little blood-letting had no religion in it, either true or 
false. The only scriptural virtue or character that circum- 
cision ever had in it, was found in its sacramental connec- 
tion, not with some indefinite or supposed Christ, but with 
the true Christ of Scripture. 

This particular point — the absolute requirement of the 
Old Testament to discontinue circumcision and all other 
forereaching rites on the coming of Messiah — will be 
farther elaborated and illustrated in future chapters. 

The simple truth is, that soon after the death of Christ, a 
very large portion of the Church renounced their former 
faith, apostatized, and set up a new religion not before 
known. Thus probably one-half, or at least a great many 
of the Church, left the Church and went away from it. The 
false religion thus set up was deism, and their descendants 
remain in the practice of this peculiar form of deism to this 



It is true, however, that these deists, having such an inti- 
mate historic connection with Jews, and perhaps farther, 



330 CONCERNING THE 

because the Jews took the more appropriate name of Chris- 
tians, retained, by common consent, the name of Jews. 
But if they were to call themselves by the name of Sera- 
phim, they would still be apostates from the Jewish faith. 

I hold, therefore, that these men greatly mistake, whoever 
they may be, and however many there may be, w^ho teach 
that modern Jews profess the religion of their ante-Messianic 
fathers. The two religions are not only different, but are in 
the highest degree hostile to each other. The former is 
essentially infidel — the latter w^as essentially Christian. 

The Jews who renounced Christ and turned away from 
him — having previously professed him — are apostate deists , 
and they and their descendants have " continued " that new 
form of infidelity to this day. Those who received Christ 
in pursuance of their faith, or, as it is said, " according to 
the Scriptures," and maintained their position, together with 
many Gentiles who afterward came in and joined them, 
formed the great apostolic Church, as the Church in that 
day is generally called, and they " continued " the ancient 
religion, and they only maintain it to this day. 

This GREAT APOSTASY — the greatest by far, considered in 
every respect, the history of religion ever knew — an apos- 
tasy which has called forth the visible curse of the Almighty 
in a most wonderful manner- — has not, so far as I have 
seen, been even noticed by the leading theological writers. 

And I hold it as matter of marvel that Mr. Addison, as 
well as many others, should speak particularly of "the 
apostasies " of this people, with not the remotest allusion to 
not only the greatest, highest, and most important apostasy 
marking Jewish history, but the greatest and most important 
apostasy known to any history. And I hold it a marvel 
that Mr. Watson should be guilty of the same oversight, and 
even by fair implication expressly to ignore it. A half a 
dozen now before me, copy Watson; and among all the 



GREAT JEWISH APOSTASY. 331 

authors around me, I see nothing on the subject but a 
mere copying from one to another. 

I may be charged with arrogance or severity. I will not 
stop to debate questions of this sort. I am, however, not 
unnecessarily severe, nor do I desire to be dogmatic. I 
profess only to unfold the truth, and make it palpable to 
all, in regard to this important Christian doctrine. 

As to the "continued" oneness of the Jewish people in 
respect to lineal descent from a common ancestor, that is 
also an error as palpable as an error can be, for it contra- 
dicts the well-known and unquestioned Bible histories in the 
case. But that argument does not belong to this chapter. 

There are, therefore, no such " arguments for the Chris- 
tian faith'' as the compiler of the Religious Encyclopedia 
and many other writers think they have found in the adher- 
ence of modern Jews to the ancient Jewish faith ; for the 
supposed " adherence " is a myth, a mistake, with no support 
in matter of fact. I appeal to the Scriptures, and to the 
unquestioned history of the case. 



332 THE GREAT MESSIANIC QUESTION, 



CHAPTER XLIX. 

CONCERNING THE GREAT MESSIANIC QUESTION, AND THE 

PARTIES TO IT. 

No intelligent Jew of the present day would advance an 
objection to the argument of the last chapter on the Jewish 
apostasy, on logical grounds. He would readily admit 
that, supposing Jesus to be the Christ of Jewish prophecy ; 
then the argument, as I have stated it, follows of logical 
necessity. He would oppose the charge of apostasy only 
on the question of fact, and contend that Jesus was not the 
Christ of the Old Testament. The modern Jew stands upon 
ground w^hich is logically true. The whole question turns 
upon the simple issue of fact. 

He contends that the ancient Jewish faith had no refer- 
ence whatever to Jesus of Nazareth, but to another Christ 
still in the future ; and he contends for the truth of his 
present religion only on that hypothesis. 

The identical Jesus, the Son of Mary was, or was not, the 
Messiah of Hebrew prophecy ; he was the one that should 
come, the Shiloh of the universal Jewish faith, the embod- 
iment of the Old Testament religion, or he was not. And 
if not, then it follows necessarily that the believing Jews 
apostatized, and that Christianity is idolatry. Either the 
one or the other must be true. The question between Chris- 
tians and modern Jews is one involving this simple fact. 



AND THE PARTIES TO IT. 383 

The rejecting Jevfs contended that they did not reject the 
Messiah. They rejected Jesus on the ground that he was 
an impostor ; and if that were true, then they are right, and 
Christians are wrong. The true answer to the question, Is 
Jesus the Christ ? determines which party maintained the 
previous faith of the Church, and which apostatized from it. 

Dr. ISTeander — Life of Christ, p. 57 — in speaking of John 
the Baptist, says : " We must conclude, however, that if 
John did recognize Jesus as Messiah, he applied to him all 
his Old Testament ideas of Messiah, as the founder of a 
visible kingdom." 

I marvel at such a statement, and still farther, that it 
passes current in the Church. I beg the Doctor's pardon, 
while I hold that there is not such an " idea " of Christ in 
the Old Testament. Every idea of Christ in the Old Tes- 
tament is exactly the same as in the New^ Testament. Will 
any man say that the Old Testament teaches of the Messiah 
as the founder of a visible kingdom f 

Let the Old Testament vindicate itself from such theol- 
ogy, and show what its ideas of Messiah are : 

"Who hath believed our report? and to w^hom is the 
arm of the Lord revealed ? For he shall grow up before 
him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground : 
he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see 
him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is 
despised and rejected of men ; a man of sorrows, and ac- 
quainted with grief; and we hid as it were our faces from 
him ; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he 
hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows ; yet we did 
esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he 
was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our 
iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; 
and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have 
gone astray ; we have turned every one to his own way 5 



334 THE GKEAT MESSIANIC QUESTION, 

and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He 
was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his 
mouth : he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a 
sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his 
mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment; 
and who shall declare his generation ? for he was cut off out 
of the land of the living : for the transgression of my people 
was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, 
and with the rich in his death ; because he had done no vio- 
lence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased 
the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when 
thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his 
seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the 
Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail 
of his soul, and shall be satisfied ; by his knowledge shall my 
righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their ini- 
quities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the 
great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong ; because 
he hath poured out his soul unto death ; and he was num- 
bered with the transgressors ; and he bare the sin of many, 
and made intercession for the transgressors." Isa. liii. 

These are the " Old Testament ideas of Messiah." They 
may be read in a hundred other places.. 

But I suggest, as a necessary logical conclusion, that if 
the Old Testament represents the Messiah as the foimder of 
a visible kingdom, and the New Testament represents him as 
the ruler of a kingdom not of this world, then the one or the 
other is wrong ; and I ask the learned Doctor which is rev- 
elation, and which is erroneous human teaching ? 

This is the very ground upon which Jewish deism is built. 

This doctrine, which, I am sorry to say, is not confined 
to Dr. Neander, is either true or false. If true, then owr 
Saviour is not the Christ of the Old Testament Scriptures, 
but is a person who about eighteen hundred years ago set 



AND THE PARTIES TO IT. 335 

up a new religion in opposition to that of the Scriptures ; 
and upon this hypothesis the rejecting Jews did right — they 
maintained their faith, and do so still ! I ask the Doctor if 
that is true ? 

And then, the difficulty with us Christians is, that we 
have not any system of religion, good or bad. For it is 
historically true, right or wrong, and I present the broad 
face of the New Testament to prove it — nay, I have herein 
before proved it abundantly — that Jesus Christ, and his 
apostles and evangelists, did not teach anew any religious 
doctrines whatsoever. They retaught, illustrated, enforced, 
made plain, interpreted, expounded, elucidated, and com- 
mented upon the then existing Scriptures; this they did, 
and beyond this they did not do. 

"And he said unto them. These are the words which I 
spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things 
must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, 
AND IN THE Prophets, AND IN THE PsALMS concerning 
me." Luke xxiv. 44. 

" Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the 
prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Matt 
v. 17. 

" The sower soweth the w^ord." Matt, iv.44. 

" For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, 
for he wrote of me." John v. 46. 

" For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, 
showing BY the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ." Acts 
xviii. 28. 

" Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman 
that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word 
of truth." 2 Tim. ii. 15. 

" Then opened he their understanding, that they might 

UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES." Luke Xxiv. 45. 

And more than one hundred other texts might be quoted, 



336 THE GREAT MESSIANIC QUESTION. 

going to show that all the teachmgs of Christ and the 
apostles, with those of John the Baptist before them, were 
based on the Old Testament doctrines. 

Then we Christians have the Old Testament doctrines of 
religion, without addition, for our religion ; or we have no 
doctrines of religion, either good or bad ; for Christ is rep- 
resented as the Founder of the same sort of a kingdom in 
both. 

The very grounds on which the apostatizing Jews, 
eighteen hundred years ago, repudiated Christ were, that he 
did not set up " a visible kingdom." They said that in so 
doing they were following the Scriptures ; but the fakity of 
this saying is the pedestal, and the only pedestal, upon 
which the Church has rested since that day. Dr. Neander's 
statement above is a flat denial of the truth of Christianity. 
Strange that the Doctor did not see it ! By unavoidable 
inference he admits that those Jews conformed to the Scrip- 
tures in rejecting Christ. 

If this doctrine of a visible-kingdom-Messiah in the Old 
Testament, and a spiritual-kingdom-Messiah for the New ; 
or, one religion for Jews, and another for Christians — ^which 
is here plainly taught by Neander — be the true doctrine, 
then I see not why any blame is to be set up against the 
rejecting Jews for refusing Christ. The religion they pro- 
fessed was written, and supposing them to have understood 
it, why should they not conform to it ? It was asking of 
them too much, that they should turn away from the relig- 
ion Jehovah had taught them, and which their prophets 
had written. 

This they were not required to do. They were required 
to conform to, not turn from, the teachings of the Old Tes- 
tament. Those who rejected Christ rejected the Old Testa- 
ment; and those who received him, did so in strict con- 
formity with those teachings. 



THE KINGDOM OF CHEIST. 83.T 



CHAPTER L. 

CONCERNING THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST — WHAT IS IT, AND 
WHEN DID IT BEGIN TO EXIST? 

Neander, in his Life of Christ, page 81, says: "The 
object of Christ was, as he himself often describes it, to 
establish the kingdom of God among men." 

This is undoubtedly true, just as it is written. But any 
one to look at the connection in which this passage stands, 
will see at once that the term establish is used not in the 
sense of to settle permanently, to fix firmly, to ratify, to 
confirm, but in the sense of to found, to set up anew, to 
originate. The two things are widely different. It is true 
that Christ came to settle permanently — to fix firmly — 
to ratify and confirm unalterably in the hearts of men 
the religion of the Scriptures, which is very properly and 
significantly called the kingdom of God. This religion 
supposes that Christ would reign permanently and supremely 
in the hearts of those receiving it. The figure is striking; 
apt, and descriptive. 

But it is not true that Christ came to found a kingdom — 
to originate a religion — ^to set up a new system of doctrines. 

The Doctor, however, does not teach that this kingdom of 
God was, under Christ, wholly and in every respect original 
and independent. For he says, "We must therefore look 
back upon the Old Testament foundations of the kingdom 



338 THE KINaDOM OF CHRIST — 

of God, before we can correctly understand tlie plan of 
Christ, as set forth in his acts and words. The one pre- 
pared the way for the other. In the former it was outward, 
and confined to the narrow community of the Jewish 
people." 

Here the contrast is drawn between the " Old Testament 
foundations of the kingdom of God" and " the kingdom of 
God among men," which Christ came to set up. This dis- 
tinction is, that the former was outivard, and confined to the 
Jews, and the latter was to be "universal" and "all-em- 
bracing." 

I am aAvare it has been often taught that the religion of 
the Old Testament was a mere outward religion. This is no 
more true of the Old Testament than of the New. In the 
first place, holiness of heart is plainly written in hundreds 
of forms of expression, all over the Scriptures, as being 
essential to salvation ; and in the second place, it would be 
hard to presume that any men of these times, or indeed of 
any times, were pious beyond the teachings of the then exist- 
ing Scriptures; and it is well known that no men ever lived 
who had a higher record for holiness than some of the Old 
Testament saints. 

Neither was the Old Testament religion ever ^^confined^' 
at ally in any sense, to any people, or any country, otherwise 
ilmn as a simple truism, that religion was confined to religious 
people. If by Jews you mean religious people, then of course 
religion was confined to them ; but if by Jews you mean any 
other or particular people, then it is not true that religion 
was ever confined to them. Religion was always free to 
all people. 

Mr. Watson — Biblical and Theological Dictionary, Ar- 
ticle Kingdom — says: "But his (Christ's) kingdom pri- 
marily imports the Gospel Church." What he intends to 
be meant by the Gospel Church is difiicult to understand, 



WHEN DID IT BEGIN TO EXIST ? 339 

since in another place he tells us that " the Christian Church 
is not another Church, but the very same that was before 
the coming of Christ." 

Doddridge frequently speaks of the kingdom of God as 
a new thing in Christ's time, which the Saviour came to set 
up originally. In Mark i. 38, he speaks of the preaching 
by Jesus of "the kingdom which God was about to erect;" 
and so, of course, it did not then exist. 

Neander — Life of Christ, page 9 — speaks with great plain- 
ness of the origin of the kingdom of God. "His (Christ's) 
life revealed the kingdom of God which was to be set up 
over all men ; and it properly commenced in a nation whose 
political life, always developed in the theocratic form, was a 
continual type of that kingdom." 

Dr. Clarke — Com. Matt. iii. 2 — in a very roundabout way, 
teaches that the kingdom of heaven has its origin with the 
personal human preaching or work of Christ. " The reign 
of Christ among men is expressly foretold in Daniel vii. 
13, 14." 

This is a mistake. It was not the reign of Christ that 
Daniel foretold. That was never /oretold, for it existed as 
certainly, though not so largely visible, in the days of 
Daniel as of Paul. It was the visible and more palpable 
manifestation to our senses and knowledge of the reign of 
Christ which the prophet foretold, and not the reign itself. 
Supposing the regal authority itself to be /oretold, it follows 
that Christ was not invested with authority until the time of 
his human appearance. . The Doctor would certainly not 
say that, for he abundantly teaches that the authority — ^the 
actual rule — the kingly reign of Christ existed fully from 
at least the time of the first promise. But he teaches in a 
way that has misled thousands. 

And Benson falls into the same error. He says, in com- 
menting on Matt. iii. 2 — "God was about to appear in an 



340 THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST. 

extraordinary manner to erect that kingdom spoken of by 
Daniel." 

This cannot be true. Mr. Benson, as well as everybody 
else, contradicts it everywhere. God was not about to erect 
a kingdom. The coming of Christ was to make plain to 
men — to manifest to us the kingdom of God, long, long 
since in existence. 

It is useless to argue about matters which lie out upon 
the very title-page of theology, and do not admit of differ- 
ence of opinion among Christians. If divine religion had 
no existence among men before the coming of Christ, then 
Mr. Benson is right; otherwise he is wrong. If the Al- 
mighty had no government of the world on religious prin- 
ciples until since the appearance of Christ, then be it so; 
but if he had, then Mr. Benson has no right to deny it; 
and to clothe the error in a straight-laced ecclesiastical 
verbiage, deriving its currency from being oft repeated, 
rather than from being true, does not relieve the difficulty, 
in my judgment. 

The kingdom of God — of Christ — of heaven, is a spirit- 
ual kingdom — an everlasting kingdom — is not of this 
world — Cometh not with observation — was prepared for the 
saints from the foundation of the world — Abraham, Isaac, 
and Jacob, and all the prophets shall be seen in it — is not 
meat and drink, and was therefore not set up — did not 
originate eighteen hundred years ago. 



MISSIONARY CHARACTER OF THE CHURCH, 341 



CHAPTER LI. 

EXPLANATORY OF THE MISSIONARY CHARACTER OF THE 
CHURCH AFTER THE COMING OF CHRIST. 

One of the greatest visible differences in the Church, in 
the period called Christianity, and that called Judaism, is, 
that in the former it is prominently aggressive, outgoing , and 
missionary, in its labors ; whereas, in the latter, it was more 
close, home-like, and exclusive. Or, we might say, the two 
periods of the Church present religion somewhat in its sub- 
jective and its objective forms of practical labor and opera- 
tion. And still, these two states of the Church, it ought 
to be seen, are rational, and not diflScult to be understood 
and appreciated. 

Before the appearance of Christ — as has been previously 
explained, at perhaps sufficient length— many of the ex- 
ternal forms of worship were so arranged as to point forward 
in a teachable kind of way to the coming of Christ in his 
human form. And -secondly, the outward labors of the 
Church — not of individual members — were conducted on 
close, or subjective principles. After Christ, those things 
which anticipated his coming abated, of course ; and at this 
time the Church assumed a more objective mode of prose- 
cuting the business of religion. 

This may be illustrated by supposing two different 
Churches at the present day. There is an old-time, rigidly 



842 MISSIONARY CHARACTER OF THE CHURCH 

Calvinistic Baptist Church; and there is a Methodist 
Church. They are both integral parts of the Church of 
God; their worship and ministry are mainly alike; the 
same Bible, same conditions of salvation, and same general 
modes of worship. In the former, almost every thing is 
done in-doors ; the Church itself makes no outward efforts to 
bring sinners in from without ; its adherents hold it to be the 
duty, however, of all men, to come into the Church and be 
religious, and are always ready to receive any such cordi- 
ally and with good welcome ; they preach to all who come 
to hear, but make no aggressive or missionary efforts to 
bring them in. 

The Methodist Church, in the first place, does the same 
thing its sister Church does, and in addition, its adherents 
give to their labors a strong aggressive character. They say, 
too, that it is the duty of all men to come in ; but as they do 
not come, they go out after them, and press the claims of 
Christ at their very homes. And so they establish Bible, 
tract, missionary, and Sunday-school societies in the Church, 
and raise money to support preaching and other Church- 
labors, not only within the pale of the Church, but in the 
regions beyond. 

This is somewhat the difference between the character of 
the Church in the periods before and after Christ, with the 
exception of those modes of teaching the future coming of 
the Saviour in the outward acts of worship, as herein before 
explained. The two Churches are widely different, but dif- 
ferent only in the outward Church-labors of religion. 

The reasons for this difference in the outward labors of 
the Church, before and after the Advent, raises another 
question, which does not necessarily belong to this chapter. 
We may see these reasons but partially, though some of 
them are not beyond the sphere of our observations. 

This outgoing, missionary, or aggressive feature given to 



AFTER THE COMING OF CHRIST. 343 

the labors of the ministry, has been by many mistaken for 
the institution of a new and different ministry. Indeed, I 
am hardly able to get definitely hold of the practical idea of 
a newly-instituted ministry at this or any other time, seeing 
there then existed a divinely-recognized ministry. "^The 
ministry might need additions to its membership ; it might 
need much instruction; much of it, because of unbelief 
and perverseness, might be repudiated by Christ ; but what 
is meant by a new and different kind of ministry ? 

The simple, practical truth is, that the Saviour gave large 
instructions to ministers, as it was needed ; some of these 
instructions were heeded, and some were not. Those who 
heeded, listened to the words of divine wisdom, and 
preached on ; those who did not heed, turned away. The 
ministry became more missionary than it was. Just at this 
point let the reader turn and read again the first twenty 
verses of the tenth chapter of Luke. The thing is there 
explained without a hint of the beginning of things anew. 

The missionary character of the Church is also illustrated 
in the parable of the great supper. Here aggressive Chris- 
tianity is most graphically set forth. Strange that Trench, 
who teaches so well about it, did not see beyond its vesti- 
bule. But then he had cramped himself down with the 
strange idea that Christ "had founded a Church in which 
there would be room enough for Gentile as well as Jew." 

There was no founding of a Church, but there was the im- 
parting to the Church aggressive force. The Church had 
long been saying, " Come, for all things are now ready." 
Now it says, " Compel them to come in " — ^that is, by that 
moral force which truth always exerts. 

Let any one read this parable with the idea full before 
him, that it is intended to teach the great rational truth 
that now the time had come when it was meet and necessary 
for the Church to wake up objectively, and thrust itself out 



844 MISSIONARY CHARACTER OP THE CHURCH. 

into the "regions beyond/' in openly attacking sin, with 
the view of its entire conquest, and he will likely see more 
beauty and force in it than some have hitherto discovered. 
And, indeed, this is not only the leading idea of this par- 
able, but of all the parables; and more than this, it is 
the great, leading idea of New Testament' teaching. The 
great, practical difference between the Church before Christ 
and after Christ is, that in the former period its labors were 
mostly in-doors, quiet, passive, conservative ; while in the 
latter, it is more bold, active, outgoing, laborious, aggressive. 



CALLING OF THE GENTILES. 345 



CHAPTEE LII. 

KESPECTING THE "CALLING OF THE GENTILES " — WHAT 
IT WAS, AND WHAT IT WAS NOT. 

Much of the current teaching on this subject is about as 
follows : Up to the time of the coming of Christ, the Jews 
— meaning thereby the descendants by birth from Abraham 
through Jacob — were the peculiar people of God, in the 
sense that all other people were left out of the divine 
economy of grace. All true religion was exclusively con- 
fined to these Jews until the time of Christ. And when 
Christ came, he set up a new and better system of religion 
than that revealed to the Jews ; and they were required to 
leave their old religion and embrace the new ; and because 
they would not do so, God cast them off, and " called " and 
adopted the Gentiles as his people. And so the Jews were 
abandoned, and thenceforward the Gentiles had religion 
offered to them. And hence the " calling of the Gentiles." 

I am so far from believing this theory, that I regard the 
Almighty as no respecter of persons ; that the first promise 
of salvation through a Saviour was made to all men, just as 
I believe the Scripture teaching is now made to and for the 
benefit of all men. Formerly, as at present, the means of 
grace were furnished more in some places and in some cir- 
cumstances than in others. Such is the varied and changing 
providence of God. This was formerly Justus it is now. 



346 CALLING OF THE GENTILES. 

I can see plainly that for a time a special line of teach- 
ing was administered to a certain isolated people, not for 
their exclusive benefit, surely, but on the "school-master" 
principle, to teach teachers, to enlighten and qualify in- 
structors, to set on foot and propagate a grand system of 
religious revealment, for the ultimate universal benefit of 
mankind. 

This was not only the divine plan for the universal spread 
of religious truth in those days, but it is precisely the plan 
in operation now, varying with the changing condition and 
circumstances of the world. All this is easily seen. It 
looks natural, simple, and is strikingly accordant to both 
reason and revelation. 

Most assuredly it always was, and now is, the bounden 
duty of all men living to worship God and be saved by 
Christ. And this could not be their duty unless God in 
mercy had thro\^Ti the pale of the gospel around them, and 
made them sensible of it in a degree proportioned to their 
several accountability. In different countries and different 
ages there has always been a great variety, in both kind 
and degree, of religious light and shade. Perfect dark- 
ness is found nowhere. A large portion of the world now 
is in about the same twilight condition as the old nations 
called Gentile were. And are they not included in the plan 
of grace? Keligion itself, naturally and unavoidably, 
creates a relation between the Church and the rest of man- 
kind. That relation is easily seen. It is the same now it 
always was. 

This idea of exclusive Jewish grace is at least strange 
and seemingly unnatural, and requires very plain proof. 
The doctrine that the Gentiles — nine-tenths of the world — 
were never called to he religious until lately, would seem to 
require very explicit proof But when we look into the 
books, it is very seldom attempted to be proved at all. Mr. 



CALLING OF THE GENTILES. 34T 

Watson says : " The prophets declared very particularly the 
calling of the Gentiles." 

The prophets always and everywhere declared the final 
spread of the gospel over all lands and all people, and that 
ultimately every knee of man should bow in worship before 
God. If that is the calling of the Gentiles, then with equal 
truth it may be said that Mr. Watson has declared the 
calling of the Gentiles. The thing, however, which the 
prophets thus declared — not "particularly," however, by 
any means, but generally — has not yet happened, except 
partially. But it will certainly come about, because Christ 
is God. 

Benson, Doddridge, Clarke, and others who copy them, 
and jfrom whom they copy, understand the reply of the 
Saviour to the Canaanitish woman, in Matt. xv. 24, to 
mean that there was then no Saviour for Gentiles. He 
was not sent to them! Strange as this may seem, it 
is true, nevertheless. But if there were no other reasons 
against their conclusion, it cannot be true, because it 
makes the Saviour then and there violate his own prin- 
ciples and his own mission ; for whatever verbal criticisms 
we may have on the very synoptic account we have of 
this conversation, it is true that the blessed Saviour did 
then and there carry his Messianic mission and work, in 
principle and in practice, openly and fairly, and against 
the remonstrances of his disciples, into the ranks of the 
Gentiles. He received her worship, commended her faith 
answered her prayer, took her as a disciple, and healed her 
daughter whom he had not seen. The Saviour's remark is 
misconstrued by the authors above quoted. They prove 
vastly too much. 

If, therefore, the Saviour, on this occasion, as these authors 
understand, and as I think is highly probable, intended to 
illustrate his Messianic relation to the Jews and Gentiles 



348 CALLING OF THE GENTILES. 

severally, then his teaching is the very reverse of what 
they understand ; for, regarding the woman as a represen- 
tative of the Gentiles, he did, in blessing, acknowledging, 
and receiving her, show most clearly that he was sent to 
Gentiles and Jews in common. 

Brown's Beligioics Encyclopedia, copying from Buck and 
Watson, says : " The prophets of the Old Testament dwell 
frequently and with benevolent delight on the future calling 
of the Gentiles to the faith of Christ." 

If this means any thing, it means that prior to eighteen 
hundred and fifty years ago the people of the world, saving 
and excepting the children of Jacob, w^ere not required to 
be religious. And that is called theology, and seems to pass 
current ! But, repulsive as such an idea is, it is considered 
necessary to support the previous and more dangerous error 
of one system of religion for some certain people, and 
another and different religion for other people. 

The prophets of the Old Testament, it is very true, dwelt 
with delight on the future ingathering of all people to 
Christ — the conversion of the Gentiles — all Gentiles. That 
prediction, however, it must be remembered, is not yet ful- 
filled. Fix or construe those predictions any way you will, 
and they are as yet unfulfilled — they are only in the course 
of fulfillment. If you choose to call these predictions 
the future calling of the Gentiles, then that is the name of 
that thing ; and then it is apparent that that thing has not 
yet happened. 

But the sense in which that expression is always used is, 
that prior to the Christian era, the Gentiles — all mankind, 
except lineal Israelites — were wholly and entirely uncalled to 
religious faith and duty ; and that now, for the first time, an 
opening of grace was made to them — the first opening — and 
that a few out of their hundreds of millions obeyed the call 
and went to Christ. No such prediction as that was ever 



CALLING OF THE GENTILES. 349 

made by any prophet. They predicted broadly, openly, 
plainly, in many places, the entire conversion of every 
person. As matter of fact, these prophecies look forward to 
the time when not one solitary sinner, born of a woman, 
shall stand upon this green earth of ours. Let any man 
examine and see. 

The Gentiles were always called — that is, just as much, 
and in the same sense in which the same thing may be said 
of millions to-day, who for this reason or that have not the 
written gospel. 

Mr. Watson's Institutes, Nashville edition, page 533, 
says: "It is easy now to see what is the import of the 
* calling' and ^election' of the Christian Church, as spoken 
of in the New Testament." It may be plain to him, but I 
confess that, after all his labored, and at least somewhat 
confused argument, it is any thing but plain to me. And, 
moreover, Mr. Watson has already told us with great plain- 
ness and deliberation that there is no such thing as the 
Christian Church, distinguished from the Jewish — that it 
is not another Church, but ''the very same^^ that always was. 
And here he places the two Churches in open and direct 
contrast, and attempts to show how God abandons the one 
and receives and owns the other. 

To me, I confess, it looks very plain that this whole story 
of God's repudiation of the Jewish Church and people, and 
of his calling or electing another Church and people in 
their stead, is a myth, or fancy, with neither facts nor truth 
to stand upon. It is at war with all the reason and all the 
revelation I know of. It is a blot upon the merciful char- 
acter of God, and the broad atonement of Jesus Christ. It 
is an unfortunate fact that, at the time of Christ, a large 
portion of the Church, a full half or more, left the Church, 
and set up a new and spurious Church, now called the Jew- 
iBh Church. But this great apostasy, fully explained and 



350 CALLING OF THE GENTILES. 

described in other chapters, did neither dismember nor dis- 
comfit the Church. The unbelieving Jews apostatized from 
their faith, and set up a new religion unknown to the 
Scriptures. Be it so. But God never turned away from 
his Church, nor called a new one. 



AKCIENT HISTORY OF RELIGION. 851 



CHAPTER LIII. 

DOES THE HISTORY OF THE ISRAELITES COMPRISE THE 
WHOLE, OR WHAT PROPORTION, OF THE ANCIENT HIS- 
TORY OF RELIGION? 

Mr. Watson — Biblical and Theological Dictionary, Ar- 
ticle Election — says: "They" — the Jews — "had been the 
only visibly acknowledged people of God in all the nations 
of the earth ; for whatever pious people might have existed 
in other nations, they were not, in the sight of men, and col- 
lectively, acknowledged as *the people of Jehovah;' they had 
no written revelations, no appointed ministry, no forms of 
authorized initiation into his Church and covenant, no ap- 
pointed holy days, or sanctioned ritual." 

Mr. Watson could not know that all this is true; and in- 
deed, with the same sources of information which he pos- 
sessed, I cannot possibly believe it to be true. It looks like 
a part of that one-idea doctrine which makes human relig 
ion consist first, in " the Jews," and their Church and relig 
ion, and then " the Christians," and their Church and re- 
ligion ; the latter, like Pharaoh's lean kine, destroying their 
predecessors. 

Mr. Watson only conjectures, without testimony, that the 
Israelites had been, in all time past, "the only visibly 
acknowledged people of God in all the nations of the earth." 
He could not know what piety or religious establishments 



352 ANCIENT HISTORY OF RELIGION. 

there might have been outside the tribes of Israel. They 
may have had no vnntten revelations ; neither had Israel for 
a long time, and then for other long periods it was but very 
sparse indeed. How far this is necessary to a true Church 
and true religion, may be a question difficult to answer; 
but it would seem hazardous to say that, outside of Israel, 
there was " no appointed ministry," and " no forms of au- 
thorized initiation into his Church," and "no appointed 
holy days, or sanctioned ritual." Indeed, I think there is 
some testimony to the contrary. 

It was a long period from the flood to Christ ; consider- 
ably over two thousand years, and very likely over three 
thousand. And during most of this time the world had a 
large population ; and in all this long period there was, no 
doubt, far more of human incident, occurrence, history, in 
all the great rounds of social, civil, and religious variety, 
than have been seen among men since the Christian era. 
But no accounts, either written or traditional, have come 
down to our times. During some small and later portions 
of these long ages, we have some very little sketches of 
Israel, of Persia, Greece, and Rome, which we call history ; 
but comparatively, it amounts almost to nothing. 

Now, the entire of human history of the things which 
happened from the flood to Christ, and of which we have 
no written account, must have been most inconceivably 
vast, beyond all comprehension. 

But we are told that this is all secular history ; that none 
of it relates to religion ; that the religious history is all in 
the Bible. This is the very point in question. How has it 
been learned that there was no religious history outside of 
Israel ? Does the Bible intimate any thing of the sort ? 

Who was Job f That is a question which Mr. Watson is 
obliged to answer. 

He gives us^ a good deal of negative information about 



ANCIENT HISTORY OF RELIGION. 353 

him : he says he was not socially connected with any relig- 
ious establishment ; that his associates were not collectively 
acknowledged as the people of Jehovah ; that they had no 
appointed ministry, no forms of authorized initiation, no 
appointed holy days, nor sanctioned ritual. 

It is certain that he was not an Israelite ; at least, I know 
of no one who pretends that he was. But he was a man of 
true religion ; yea, and he was a theologian of no mean 
stamp. Theology does not come by intuition; it implies 
study, and a good deal of social, religious, or ecclesiastical 
association. No man is a theologian until by favorable 
opportunity he has long pursued the habit of comparing 
his own ideas and opinions with those of other men. And 
all this implies religion in a community-state considerably 
developed. 

And then, his three friends — who were they ? They were 
not Israelites either ; they seem to be the ecclesiastical asso- 
ciates of Job ; they belonged to his Church ; they were 
acquainted with God and his providence; and were cer- 
tainly men of some parts in respect to religion. Two of 
them seem tinctured somevvhat with what, at this day, we 
would call universalism, but the third was a theologian who 
would compare favorably with some who were considered 
men of renown in that branch of knowledge two thousand 
years afterward. 

We may none of us know who Job was, but we cannot 
suppose him to have been a man without religious associa- 
tion. He was a Christian. This much may be said with 
safety. And so likewise were his three friends. And it is too 
much to ask us to believe that these four instances of Chris- 
tian piety and theological knowledge should have sprung up 
as so many isolated productions, especially in that far-off age. 
Religion does not proceed in this way. It runs in gradually- 
increasing streams of social and intellectual communion. 
12 



354 ANCIENT HISTORY OF RELIGION. 

Job certainly has taught the world some lessons in Chris- 
tian theology which were treated far less lightly by proph- 
ets and apostles than by some later divines. See him on 
Human Depravity, in iv. 14 ; on Justification by Faith, in 
XXV. 4, etc. 

And who wad MelcMzedelc f Here is another instance of 
casual glance, where the history strikes outside the Israel- 
itish channel. 

We know very little more of Melchizedek than of Job ; 
but he too was a man of true religion. It is said that he 
was a priest of the Most High God, and king of Salem. 
He and Abraham knew each other — at least from charac- 
ter — well ; and the latter recognized in the priest a prince 
of exalted position and great renown, a friend of God and 
man, of true faith and piety. In what particular sense the 
term 'Spriest " is here used as applied to this man, we may 
not know with certainty, but we may conclude that — first, he 
was a minister of religion, or preacher, as we now commonly 
say ; and secondly, he belonged to an " order " of priest- 
hood. And this proves him to have been a Christian ; for 
the very idea of priest — a divinely-recognized priest — prior 
to the coming of Christ, implies, and is inseparable from, 
the teacMng of Christian theology. Divinely-recognized 
priests, anterior to Christ, were instrumental teachings of 
Christ — the one great, real Priest. 

This word order is undoubtedly used in the sense of ranhy 
class, or division of men, kept up perpetually or regularly. 
That Christ was " a priest for ever after the order of Mel- 
chizedek," does not, by any means, imply that the latter 
stood by himself, without predecessor or successor. Order 
of priesthood is not predicated of Christ, but of Melchize- 
dek. The meaning is, that the priesthood of Christ did, in 
some respects, resemble the order of priesthood to which 
Melchizedek belonged. 



ANCIENT HISTORY OP RELIGION. 855 

The conclusion is, that Melchizedek belonged to a relig- 
ious establishment outside of Israel. 

But whatever differences of conjecture there may be with 
regard to Melchizedek's order of priesthood — for they could 
be scarcely called opinions — he was certainly a member of 
a religious community. Some call him a type of Christ ; 
but with him before you, you cannot say that Israel was 
" the only visibly-acknowledged people of God ;" and that 
beyond the Israelitish Church there was "no appointed 
ministry," nor any "appointed holy days, or sanctioned 
ritual.'' 

And again, who was Balaam f Balaam was not an Isra- 
elite, and yet he was a prophet, and proper worshiper of the 
true God. He was not only not an Israelite, but w^e have 
no reason to suppose that he had any knowledge of such 
a people. His conduct in the matter, merely casually and 
but very imperfectly glanced at in Scripture, may not be 
approved by us — that is, so far as we understand it ; but it 
is well known that he was a true minister of religion, and 
his ministry was divinely-recognized. From what we know 
of him, we are not at liberty to suppose that he had no relig- 
ious associations. We might as well suppose as much of 
any of the Israelitish prophets. 

We have at least these historical glances in regard to 
priests, ministers, and worshipers of God, contemporary 
with and outside of Israel. Who can say, then, that out- 
side of Israel there was " no appointed ministry," and " no 
authorized initiation into the Church," and " no appointed 
holy days, or sanctioned ritual " ? Who knows how much of 
the Church of God was outside, and what proportion inside 
the pale of Israel ? 

Moses and the prophets did not undertake to write a 
history of the world, nor of the religion of the world. 
Indeed, they wrote no history of any thing. They sketched 



356 ANCIENT HISTORY OF RELIGION. 

some very brief historical notes. For this there were im- 
portant reasons, connected with the question of the personal 
identity of Christ, and no doubt other important matters, 
of which we know but very little. 

The religion outside of Israel may have been, at times, 
ten-fold, or a hundred-fold, greater than that inside ; but it 
partook of the general character of religion prior to the 
sending out of Abraham. Subjectively, it was the same as 
any other true religion, for there can be but one kind ; but 
objectively — in its community character — it was not so 
based, and with such forms, as would make it leaven the 
whole lump of mankind. The social, ecclesiastical, and 
objective forms and characteristics implanted into the Isra- 
elitish family, and continued to this day, though not supe- 
rior to the religion of Abel, of Noah, of Job, and Mel- 
chizedek, so far as the salvation of any particular person 
is concerned, was, nevertheless, the only external system of 
religion adapted to the entire renovation of the world and 
the subjugation of mankind. 



"THE DISSOLUTION OF JUDAISM." 357 



CHAPTER LIV. 



"the DISSOLUTION OF JUDAISM," AS HELD BY NEANDER 

AND OTHERS. 



This learned German tlieologian, in his lAje of Christ, p. 
39, holds the following language in a complete section, and 
under the following head : 

^^ Affinity of Christianity, as absolute truth, for the various 
opposing religious systems. 

" On the dissolution of Judaism, its elements originally 
joined together in a living unity, necessarily produced 
various religious tendencies which mutually opposed and 
excluded each other. In all these we can find nothing akin 
to the new creation of Christianity. And, wherever Chris- 
tianity appears for the first time, or reveals itself anew in 
its own glory, it must ofier some points of affinity for the 
difierent opposing systems. The living, perfect truth, has 
points of tangency for the one-sided forms of error, though 
we may not be thereby enabled to put together the perfect 
whole from the scattered and repellent fragments." 

However obscure some portions of the above may be, there 
are some things in it which are plain. And, in the first place, 
I remark, that the qualifications here given to Christianity 
have, and can have, no meaning whatever. There is no such 
thing as " absolute truth " in distinction to some other truth 
not absolute. All truth is absolute in the strictest sense, 



358 ^^THE DISSOLUTION OF JtfDAISM," 

and always in the same sense. Sometimes truth is applied 
to religion, and sometimes to other things ; and so some- 
times it applies to very important things, and sometimes to 
things less important ; but the truth itself is always of the 
same character. It is as true that two and three are equal 
to five, as that in the beginning God created the heaven 
and the earth. Truth is one thing — the things to which 
truth may be applied are another. Botany is true, and 
Christianity is no more. Truth admits of no qualification 
nor degrees of comparison. 

The teaching above, therefore, that Christianity has affin- 
ity for the various opposing systems of religion, because its 
truth is "absolute/' is no teaching at all, for the reason that 
the words do not convey. an idea. But there are some other 
things in the extract sufficiently explicit to require some 
notice. 

Is it true that Judaism was dissolved? The thing is so 
coolly assumed that it would seem not to admit of question. 
What is Judaism f And what is dissolved f I know of no 
diflference of belief v/ith regard to the meaning of these 
words. ^ 

Judaism is a system of religion, and is written, word for 
word, in the Old Testament Scriptures ; and dissolved, in the 
sense here meant, is wasted away, ended, broken, destroyed ; 
dissolution is complete destruction. 

Now, is it true that that system of religion suffered de- 
struction ? Was it destroyed ? Did the introduction of Chris- 
tianity, or of something, destroy that system of religion, so 
written, which we call Judaism? If this was done by the 
divine authority of Christ, then, in the name of consistency, 
let us be true to ourselves and confess it. If we believe it, 
why do we not come square up and talk it and teach it ? 

Who believes that, "on the dissolution of Judaism," eight- 
een hundred years ago, such and such things ensued ? Ko- 



AS HELD BY NEANDER AND OTHERS. 859 

body. It is the clerical phraseology of fashionable and 
fanciful theology, but it finds practical belief nowhere. 
If Christianity is, or became a " new creation," a new sup- 
planting system of religion, originating at the time of 
Christ, and taking the place of a defunct system, then let 
the dissolved system be at least expunged from the house of 
God and the Christian Bible. To retain it is simple dese- 
cration. 

The " new religion," as it is frequently called by Neander 
and others, is in no sense new nor difierent from that which 
he says was "dissolved." It is neither new nor different, 
because it contains not a doctrine of religion or rule of 
ethics not already written and in full force in the Old Tes- 
tament. The New elaborates, explains, and enforces those 
doctrines and rules, and does nothing else. Let any man 
try to find any thing else in the New Testament. 

Neander, like many others on this subject, is inconsistent. 
He teaches pro and con. He teaches that the Old Testa- 
ment is good, and he teaches that it is bad. He teaches 
that it is dissolved, and he teaches that it is intact. He 
teaches that it is superseded, and he teaches that it is in 
full force. 

It is not unfrequent that a minister will elucidate several 
Old Testament passages, proving thereby, as he says, every 
doctrine of religion known to theology, and will then read 
without objection, from Neander and others, that Judaism 
is dissolved ! 

Neither has Neander a right to place the Old Testament 
religion in the category of " opposing systems," and " one- 
sided forms of error " — though that would be its position 
if it were "dissolved." We Christians recognize. the whole 
of the Old Testament as Scripture intact, and not merely a 
part of it. It is just as perfect and just as " one-sided " 
now as it ever was. 



860 "the dissolution of judaism." 

The clumsy idea — clumsy enough, however popular it 
may be — that the people called Jeivs since the apostles, are 
the ecclesiastical successors of the Jews before the time of 
the Saviour, will not bear the test of examination a moment. 
This point is elaborated elsewhere. To this modern Judor 
ism, as this particular form of deism is generally called. Dr. 
Neander makes no allusion. The Judaism which he dis- 
solves is the true, divinely-recognized Judaism of Scripture, 
the true Church of the living God, as it existed before the 
time of our Saviour. The former was not then " dissolved," 
because it did not then exist. For it I have neither defense 
nor apology. But the latter must be defended because it is 
the Church. 



THE ^^ BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM." 361 



CHAPTER LV. 

CONCERNING THE "BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM." WHAT 
WAS BEGUN AT JERUSALEM ? 

Among the last instructions given by our Lord to liis 
disciples was tlie following : " Thus it is written, and thus it 
behooved Christ to sufier and to rise from the dead the third 
day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be 
preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jeru- 
salem." Luke xxiv. 47. 

Now, the question is — What was it which was thus to be 
begun at Jerusalem ? 

Doddridge says: "It was both graciously and wisely 
appointed by our Lord, that the gospel should begin to be 
preached at Jerusalem." 

Clarke says : " Making the first overtures of mercy to my 
murderers." 

Benson says : " That the heralds of divine grace should 
begin at Jerusalem, was appointed both graciously and 
wisely." 

Burkitt says: "Yet there will he have the doctrine of 
repentance preached ; nay, first preached." 

I know of no fair, useful way to handle either words or 
ideas but a plain, rational way — naturally and according 
to common sense ; and so I am quite unable to understand 
any of the above quotations in a way that will not violate 



362 THE "beginning at JERUSALEM." 

plain, notorious, historic truth. Perhaps I ought not to say 
that; but what else shall I say? 

When Doddridge speaks about ''the gospel'' being 
''preached,'' I understand that preaching the gospel is in- 
structing men in a revealed religion — exhorting them to be 
saved from sin by Christ — offering men salvation by divine 
authority through Christ our Saviour. Or, it may be, and 
often is, described in many other forms of expression, but 
they all mean the same thing. And when Dr. Doddridge 
tells us that this began to be done at Jerusalem, after the 
resurrection of our Lord, he tells us that which everybody 
knows to be untrue, and about which there can be no 
difference of opinion. Everybody knows that the Saviour 
himself had been doing this very thing, among others, for 
about three years before that; and that John did the same 
thing before that; and that all the prophets, and many 
others, including Noah and Abel, did exactly that thing, 
to the salvation of thousands, hundreds and thousands of 
years before the days of John or the apostles. 

Will Dr. Doddridge say, or will anybody say for him, 
that the gospel — salvation by the Spirit of God through 
Christ — was not preached, taught openly, orally, in the 
Church, and that thousands were not saved thereby, many 
hundred years before the time he speaks of ? Then why 
does he say so ? And why do we tolerate such teachings ? 

And when Dr. Clarke tells us that " the first overtures of 
mercy " were then and there made to the murderers of the 
Lord, he tells that w^hich does not admit of debate ; for 
both he and everybody knows very w^ell that "overtures 
of mercy " — exactly the kind of overtures he speaks of — 
were made to other murderers, and to all classes of sinners, 
by Isaiah and many other ministers of religion, long before 
that time. If he had said that now, for the ten thousandth 
time, such overtures of mercy were made, he would have 



WHAT WAS BEGUN AT JERUSALEM? 363 

said what tlie Scriptures, all over them, abundantly 
testify. 

Benson says the heralds of divine grace began there, at 
Jerusalem. It matters not whether by "herald" he means 
a proclaimer or harbinger: everybody knows that, in 
either sense, " divine grace '^ was heralded wide and loud 
among at least a considerable portion of the people of 
the world — as is the case now — both graciously and 
wisely, hundreds and even thousands of years before the 
time he speaks of. 

Burkitt says that " the doctrine of repentance was first 
preached" on the occasion in question. "Well, as a matter 
of simple historic fact, everybody knovfs that that state- 
ment is plainly contradicted on almost every page of Scrip- 
ture, from Genesis to Kevelation. The doctrine of repent- 
ance is taught all over the Scriptures from the first, and 
was always preached. Certainly no one can mean that 
repentance, as a religious doctrine and duty, was a new 
thing in the days of the apostles. 

Then what was meant by beginning at Jerusalem F To 
me, this question looks as simple and plain as it is rational 
and natural. I will not, however, fearlessly affirm what it 
does mean, as I do above fearlessly affirm what it does not 
mean ; for in matters admitting of difference of opinion, my 
opinion is of no more value than that of any one else. 

I understand that the apostles Vv^ere to begin there, simply 
because they were there — rather than to go somewhere else 
and begin — to proclaim the fact of a risen Saviour, in con- 
nection with the old, or ordinary doctrines and precepts of 
religion, which they and all other true ministers had always 
preached. This fact was no new doctrine by any means, 
but was as old as Abel. The accomplishment of the fact 
was the only new aspect in the matter. Before this time, of 
course, the doctrine was preached prospective to the fact. 



364 THE '^BEGINNINa AT JERUSALEM.'' 

Now, for the first time, the fact could be stated. It is 
certain they were to preach no new thing, in the sense of a 
new doctrine, or precept, or condition of salvation, because 
he stated to them that they were to preach that which was 
" written " within the Old Testament. 

All this is very natural. The doctrines and precepts of 
religion were all long since written in the Scriptures ; and 
they were understood as far as they were understood, and 
obeyed as far as men obeyed them — just as they are now. 
The external, historic events in the human life of the 
Saviour, did not happen until they did happen; and so 
previously these were anticipated, and subsequently they 
are looked back upon historically. But eighteen hundred 
years ago no new things happened except mere historic 
events, just as all events happen, or occur, historically. But 
the faith of the Church remained the same ; the doctrines, 
precepts, and religion, and the Church itself, remained unin- 
terruptedly the same. 

Now, suppose the Saviour had told them in different 
w^ords, as he did in effect tell them, to continue to preach 
the written doctrines of the Church without change, and to 
begin right here where you are, where these recent, long 
looked-for, long forewritten events had occurred — what 
would the apostles have done ? 

Why they vrould have done exactly what they did do — 
preach repentance, faith, prayer, humility, forgiveness, 
atonement, heaven, and future punishment, just as the 
Church had always preached these same things. And as 
to the actual events which had so recently happened 
they would of course preach them too. But to be con- 
sistent, to preach the same doctrines, they would no longer 
preach these things as future, because they are no longer 
fiiture. They would no longer present arguments and 
prophecies to prove that they would h*appen, but testi- 



WHAT WAS BEGUN AT JERUSALEM? 366 

mony showing that they had happened. That is what we 
do now. 

' And suppose they had inquired of the Saviour w^hat they 
should do with regard to the ceremonies of the Church? 
His reply would have been : " The ceremonies will regulate 
themselves if you maintain the doctrines and precepts 
right: those which pointed forward, by way of instruc- 
tion, to these recent events, personal to me, will abate, of 
course — they in their very nature must cease. The sacra- 
ments must of course continue ; but the former modes in 
which they were administered being forereaching — point- 
ing forward to these recent events — these modes must 
change, and so I have adopted new rites for the adminis- 
tration of the sacraments." 

Of course it never before happened that the ministers of 
religion could point to the accomplished facts of Christ's 
death and resurrection. Before, they could only teach the 
doctrine ; and the visible fads are useful to us only as they 
furnish better evidence of the truth of the doctrine than, 
in the nature of things, could be furnished before. 

Now they can exhibit the religion of the Old Testament 
in a light far more clear and powerful than ever before. 
Now they can point to the confirmation of those things, 
which before could only be anticipated. 

But this was no more a new religion, nor a first preaching 
of the gospel, than the looking back on an eclipse that has 
happened is a new system of astronomy. Nevertheless, 
many of the Jews of that day wer^ greatly in error with 
regard to many of the doctrines as well as the facts of their 
Church and religion. They all believed in Christ, but 
many of them repudiated Jesus. So that Ms death and 
reported resurrection were not heeded by them. And, 
obviously, it was just as necessary then as it is now, that 
Jesus should be identified with Christ. 



366 THE ^^ BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM." 

It was in the highest degree important, therefore, that 
the apostles should begin right there, in the Church, the 
Church in which they were all born, at their great center 
of Church operations, to publish the death and resurrection 
of their Lord, as it was long since written, but as the facts 
had just now happened, and so to urge and enforce the 
truths they had always believed. 

And so it is quite easy to see great force in the instruction, 
" beginning at Jerusalem." But the idea of then and there 
beginning to preach " the gospel" — to " preach repentance" 
— to make "overtures of mercy " to wicked men — to "herald 
divine grace," is first, to take a very shallow view of these 
religious teachings ; and secondly, to make the plainest and 
openest war on the plainest and openest historic truth. 



"the law of MOSES." 867 



CHAPTER LVI. 

CONCERNING "the LAW OF MOSES." W^HAT IS UNDER- 
STOOD BY THIS EXPRESSION? 

The expression, The law of Moses, is frequently used in 
Scripture, and means, sometimes the Decalogue, sometimes 
the Book of Deuteronomy, sometimes the entire Pentateuch, 
and sometimes certain blessings and curses pronounced by 
the Almighty, through the agency of Moses ; but it i^ gen- 
erally used to mean the entire system of religion as it is 
written in the Old Testament. This is the sense in which 
it is uniformly understood in theological language, unless 
there be something in the context denoting a different 
meaning. 

We are sometimes told that the law of Moses is divided 
into two parts — the moral and the ceremoniaL The former, 
being adapted to mankind generally, is still in force, and is 
binding on all men ; while the latter, being intended only 
for Jews, was repealed on the coming of Christ. On these 
points I hope to make some observations in the next chapter. 

Mr. Watson says — Biblical and Theological Dictionary, 
Article Law — "The love of God is everywhere enjoined in 
the Mosaic law as the ruling disposition of the heart, from 
which all obedience should spring, and in which it ought to 
terminate." 

Then, if this is true, which I presume cannot for one 



368 "the law of moses.'* what is 

moment be doubted, how can Dr. Clarke — end of Eomans-— 
complain of teachers who taught that " no man could be in 
a state of acceptance y>'ith God without observing the law 
of Moses"? And again, "The Jews who were for joining 
the law and the gospel together, were also great enemies to 
our apostle." 

These persons are complained of because they inculcated 
the highest and purest morality known to revelation. That 
must be a mistake. The error of these persons complained 
of by St. Paul, and to which the Doctor refers, w^as not that 
they followed^ but that they departed from, the law of Moses. 
Their error was not in understanding what the law of 
Moses did really teach, and for teaching contrary to it. 
The law of Moses — meaning thereby wliat Mr. Watson 
describes it to be, as above quoted — is the very same system 
of religion precisely which Paul preached. 

The same sacraments in the Old Testament are in the 
New, and, as we have formerly shown, did not change, 
and cannot change. Religious principles — belief, faith in 
Christ, doctrines, morals — did not change. Surely the rela- 
tion between God and man did not change. Then what 
changed ? Nothing but the mere modes of teaching. And 
these modes changed — such of them as did change — be- 
cause the nature of things required it, because some of them 
were before, and some after, the human appearance of the 
Saviour ; but not because of any merely arbitrary command. 
The thing was so apparent and obviously necessary that it 
seems not to have required any instructions. The sacra- 
ments could not now be administered in some ritual forms 
which would point forward to Christ's coming and death. 
Before the event they anticipated it, or, as they say, typified 
it ; whilst afterward they commemorated it. To have done 
otherwise, would have thrown the practical and rational 
theology of the Church into ridicule and inconsistency. 



UNBERSTOOD BY THIS EXPKESSION ? 369 

But in neither case, according to the teachings of both 
the Old ^nd New Testaments, was there any religion, nor 
any religious faith in a knife, nor in a few drops of blood, 
nor in the flesh of an animal, nor in water, nor in a cup of 
wdne, nor a few pieces of bread. These things are nothing 
but instruments — they may be used for various purposes. 

And if St. Paul understood these things better than some 
of his more erring and ignorant brethren — as we find was 
the case — why, be it so; but to predicate these errors of 
"the law of Moses," and of the "Jewish religion," is to 
predicate error of divine teachings. 

No religion was ever prescribed to Jeivs, All the religion 
known to Scripture was revealed to mankind. The idea that 
some particular religious tenets were specially prescribed to 
some particular class of persons, will not bear the test of 
examination a moment. The process will soon run you into 
absurdity, if not into profanity. 

The visible work of the Messiah being yet in the future, 
it could be taught only by symbolic representations, because 
this is the only mode possible by which ideas can be origi- 
nated ; and to pre-represent a thing which has happened, is 
absurd. The external act of last year would have no mean- 
ing now. To keep up the same meaning, your external 
modes of representation must, in many things, be changed. 

Now, at the coming of Christ, many Church-members 
did not understand this reasoning. It is much easier for us 
to talk about it now than it was for them to realize it then. 
They mistook the meaning, the teaching of some of their 
own religious performances; they knew the lesson, but 
overlooked its true meaning ; and so they failed to see the 
necessity of the changes. They could not, for instance, see 
how the thing meant in circumcision, could now be intel- 
ligibly performed in what we call baptism. 

The law of Moses, understood to mean the system of 



370 "THE LAW OF MOSES," WHAT IS 

religion of the Old Testament, was, and still is, written. 
Those who understood and practiced it were Christians; 
those who misunderstood it, and so departed from it, stood 
in the same relation to religious truth as a man now who 
misunderstands the theory of religion. 

It is, and always was true, that " no man can be in a 
state of acceptance with God without observing the law of 
Moses." 

What is meant by observing the law of Moses f It can 
only mean to conform to the doctrines and precepts of 
religion written in the Old Testament. That system of 
religion has not been changed in a jot or tittle. Circumcis- 
ion, considered as a mere physical manipulation, w^as not a 
part of that religion ; though the sacrament thus outwardly 
performed was. The sacrament remains intact. The ma- 
nipulation changed from a necessity growing out of the his- 
toric religious fact that a part of the period of the Church 
was before, and a part after, the Messianic Advent. And 
just so of the other sacrament. Every thing making up 
the RELIGION of " the law of Moses '^ remains, and will ever 
remain, in full force. 

It is not only true, but it is abundantly taught in both 
the Old Testament and the Kew, that those outward modes 
must change on the appearance of Christ. Let this be 
borne in mind — that the law of Moses everywhere required 
and enjoined that the outward forms, those w^hich antici- 
pated Christ, and which the Saviour did not continue, were 
to be observed up to the period of Christ's coming and 
death, and no lonyer. So that those who continued them 
beyond the limited period, did so in violation of all the 
authority in the Old Testament; that is, such acts, after 
this period, possessed no religious character. The precise 
limit to which these religious ceremonies were to be carried 
is unmistakably found in this — that they anticipated, looked 



UNDERSTOOD BY THIS EXPRESSION? . 371 

forward to Christ's coming. Then, how could they be so 
used beyond this period ? 

But, though these outward manipulations were no part of 
the Mosaic religious system proper, yet the great principles 
they were intended to teach rendered them very important 
in that period of time ; but they were only instriimentaUy 
important. They had in themselves no sacramental virtue ; 
they had the same relation to a sacrament as a table, a 
white cloth, and a goblet of wine now have. The error was 
not in attaching too much importance to these things. It 
was in the kind, not the degree, of importance. 

I submit, then, that St. Paul did not — as Mr. Watson 
and others say he did — complain of the Galatians, nor of 
anybody else, for adhering to the Imu of Moses, rightly under- 
stood. He complained of them for observing what the law 
of Moses was not, for what some erroneously supposed it to 
be — ^not for what it was. If Paul repudiated any part of 
the Old Testament, why do not we do the same thing now ? 

Macknight on the Epistles, p. 276, says : " Not long after 
the Galatians embraced the gospel, certain Jewish Chris- 
tians, zealous of the law of Moses, came among them and 
taught them, that unless they were circumcised, and obeyed 
the law, they could not be saved." This, he says, was an 
error. The truth is, it was an error, because it is a contra- 
diction. To be *•' circumcised " after the death and resur- 
rection of Christ, was not to obey the law, but was to 
depart from the law ; because the law in the Old Testament 
limited circumcision to the period before Chrisfs death. If you 
obey the law, therefore, you cease to circumcise on the 
coming of Messiah. Strange that Macknight did not see 
this. And on the next page he tells us that, " Then, by a 
variety of arguments, taken from the Jewish Scriptures, he 
(Paul) completely confuted the error of the Judaizers," 

These two things cannot both be true. Paul could not 



372 ^^THE LAW OF MOSES." 

prove hy ihe Jewish Scriptures that conformity to the law of 
3Ioses was an error. That would Diake " the Jewish Scrip- 
tures " convict the " law of Moses '' of error. These two 
expressions — Jewish Scriptures, and law of Moses — can only- 
mean the same thing. 

It is wonderful the learned author did not see the blunder. 

Those persons who were guilty of this error were not co}i' 
forming to the law of Moses, but departing from it. They 
were in flivor of circumcision when the law of Moses 
teaches that circumcision cannot exist; they, contrary to 
the law of Moses, taught circumcision after the humanity of 
Christ ; whereas, the law of !Moses everwhere teaches that 
circumcision can be religiously performed only before the 
humanity of Christ. And does any one wish to be cited to 
some of those passages in the law of Moses where circum- 
cision is limited to the period before Christ ? If so, I cite — 
as above noted — to every place in the Old Testament where 
the word circumcisio?i is used. One of the essential elements 
of its meaning and teaching is to jt)?'e-represent Christ, to 
point foncard to his future coming. 

Verily, Paul did prove from the Jewish Sciiptures or the 
law of 3Ioses, whichever expression any one prefers, that the 
circumcision which Moses taught and enjoined could not 
exist after the coming and work of Christ. 



CEREMONIAL LAW WAS NOT ABOLISHED. 873 



CHAPTER LVII. 

THE SO-CALLED CEREMONIAL LAW WAS NOT ABOLISHED. 

We are told that the dmne Law of religion, as pre- 
scribed to the Jews, was in two parts, or rather, that there 
were two laws — the Moral and the CeremoniaL The former 
was permanent, and therefore descended into Christianity ; 
while the latter, being only for Jews, was abolished at the 
coming of Christ. "Abolished," " repealed," " abrogated," 
are interchangeably used to mean the same thing in respect 
to the cessation or discontinuance of the ceremonial law. 

We have become so accustomed to hear that this par- 
ticular law has been abolished, that we are not at all 
stPvrtled at the idea that a lavj of God had been repealed. 
But, to reflect a moment — How can a laiv of God he 
abolished f 

A divine law is neither more nor less than a truth — any 
truth ; and all truth, discovered or undiscovered, revealed 
or unrevealed, stands upon the same common level of 
primary, innate immutability. The repeal of a divine law 
is an impossibility. No law can be repealed except on the 
ground of error in the enactment — error either intrinsic in 
the law itself, or a lack of foresight into the future circum- 
stances in which the law is to operate ; and as no truth can 
ever cease to be true, so no divine law can ever cease to be 
a law. A law made in perfect wisdom can never be re- 



874 THE SO-CALLED CEREMONIAL LAW 

pealed in perfect wisdom, for the reason that God is not 
wiser at one time than at another. 

Or to state the proposition otherwise : We need not say 
that God cannot repeal a law. It is enough to say that he 
cannot make a law that ever ought to be repealed, for the 
reason that he cannot be in any degree unwise. That God 
cannot repeal a law of his own making, is but a simple 
necessary deduction from his supposed infinite wisdom. 

Kepealable laws are defective laws — human laws. But 
divine laws, being made in infinite wisdom, cannot be 
repealed, because no such laws can be made. This is 
precisely the difierence; and really, if looked carefully 
into, it is radically the only difierence between divine 
and human laws: the former are fixed and immutable, 
because they are absolutely and undeviatingly true ; and 
the latter are always more or less unwise, uncertain in 
their application, and therefore subject to repeal. A law 
IS repealable only because it is defective. 

Repeal of a law is not therefore the right phrase to use in 
regard to the disuse of certain ceremonies in the Church, 
which w^ere once, but are no longer, in vogue. 

God's laws are immutable. But it is in the very nature 
of law, all law, to look forward into its future operations ; 
and as these operations lie in a world of constant and rapid 
changes on every hand, if the law be wisely made, it must 
have particular and exact respect to these changes, and 
provide for them ; that is to say, the practical operation 
of the law is contingent on these changes. The laws of 
God governing human conduct operate and apply to and 
under all the vast variety of human changes and circum- 
stances ; and if we suppose God to change the law at all with 
these changes, then we run into the absurdity of supposing 
ten thousand repeals and reenactments of law every day 
and every hour. 



WAS KOT ABOLISHED. 375 

A young man is now under the control of his father, and 
now he is released from that control, but no law is repealed. 
A woman is now under the control of a certain man as her 
husband, and now she is under no such control, and she 
is now under the control of another man. But the law 
of marriage has proceeded straightforward all the while. 
There were many laws of God which operated before the 
flood in a way in which by possibility they can never operate 
again, because they had a prospective reference to that 
event. Some laws operate or apply differently with every 
man, every day as he advances in life. The simple advance 
of years requires different conduct. 

The laws of God respecting the diffusion of religious 
knowledge, must apply differently in practice, in the present 
literary state of the world, from what they should have 
done at the time of the exodus, or at any former time. 
Look at the thousands of things in this regard, which have 
changed with the advancement of letters and the im- 
provement in arts and sciences, without any repeal of 
law. Under the same unrepealed laws of psychology, 
children are taught by different means from those used 
with older persons. 

And again : many laws have direct and particular refer- 
ence to certain events ; and in all such cases the law applies 
differently before and after the event. Before the event, the 
law referred to it prospectively ; and after it, retrospectively. 
This principle is important, and should be kept carefully 
in view. 

This doctrine, that a law of God cannot be repealed, is 
not in the least infringed upon by miracles and prophecies, 

Hume says a miracle cannot be believed, because it is 
" contrary to experience." It is true that a thing which is 
contrary to experience cannot be believed ; and Mr. Watson 
very correctly replies to Hume, by saying that a miracle is 



376 THE SO-CALLED CEREMONIAL LAW 

only different from experience, but not contrary to it. 
Kousseau, on the same subject, says that "God cannot 
derogate from the laws he has established." This is very 
truet nor is this done in miracles. In reply to Rousseau, 
Dr. Keith makes the following illogical argument: "It 
might not, perhaps, be unphilosophical to think that the 
same Almighty Being who, in such manifest wisdom and 
power, had established the universe in order, and set on 
it his seal, had still reserved to himself the authority and 
right of modifying or suspending, for a purpose which he 
had or might have decreed from the creation of the world, 
that order which he had impressed upon nature." ^ 

But if the miracle was decreed from the creation of the 
world, then that was a part of the law of nature. The law 
of nature is but the decree or mind of God. The miracle, 
then, was in conformity with the law, and not a violation of 
it, though it was a departure {rom, our uniform experience. 
Or, as Watson very correctly remarks, "Experience informs 
us 'that one event has happened often ; testimony informs 
us that another event has happened once or more." Who 
knows that our experience comprehends all possible laws 
of God ? A miracle is a departure, not from the laws 
of nature, but from such laws of nature as our experience 
comprehends. It is an unlooked for, inexperienced thing. 
But the experience of God may reach farther into pos- 
sibilities and comprehend it easily. The repeal of a law 
implies an after-thought; and who will say that the resur- 
rection of Christ, or any other miracle, was in the Divine 
mind an after-thought ? 

And, one thought more. What do we mean by actions 
or ceremonies in religion, and what is their use? Why, 
is it not sufficient that we merely think right in relation 
to God, and do right to our fellow-men ? Eeligious actions 
or ceremonies possess in themselves no intrinsic value. 



WAS NOT ABOLISHED. 377 

But we are so constituted — the inlets to the heart and 
soul are so arranged — that man is favorably affected by 
these mere ceremonial actions. A man, other things being 
equal, will pray more profitably, in a praying posture, in 
the silent closet, or amid the fervent associations of the 
congregation, than in the olrdinary pursuits of hurry and 
employment. 

Ceremonies, then, are instruments of religious instruc- 
tion. As Mr. Watson says, " Without such institutions, 
religion might be pursued, indeed, by a few of superior un- 
derstanding and strong powers of reflection; but among 
mankind in general all trace of it would soon be lost." 

Religious ceremonies are therefore great natural helps in 
religion. They are almost necessarily quite numerous, for 
the reason that religious thought and teaching present so 
many points of variety. Whether there were more or fewer 
of these ceremonies in use in the Church before Christ than 
since, is a question that cannot now be certainly answered. 
It is certain, however, that there are more ceremonies in 
common use in the present day among all kinds of Chris- 
tians, than we have any account of in the Jewish Scriptures. 

But let it be distinctly remembered that, in their very 
nature, religions ceremonies of all kinds are but modes of 
teaching and impressing upon the mind, feelings, habits, and 
the religious truths revealed in the Bible. Of themselves they 
embody no truth nor rule of moral action ; they are not 
tenets nor doctrines, but the mere modes of inculcating 
tenets or doctrines. 

We are now, perhaps, better prepared to look at some 
of the ceremonies of the Church, prior to the coming of 
Christ, and to see why some of them discontinued or were 
changed in form at that time. 

A little reflection, coupled with a moderate degree of 
biblical knowledge, will enable any one to see, that in the 



378 THE SO-CALLED CEREMONIAL LAW 

early and more crude ages of the world, religious actions 
were used, or ought to have been used, for two other pur- 
poses besides the general end alluded to above. In the 
first place, they were used as instruments in juvenile, pri- 
mary teachings of religious knowledge. In that age of 
the world there was no literature, at least none for the 
great body of the people, and so these sacred actions 
were pressed into service and made exceedingly useful. 
And in the second place, these actions were strongly 
Christian, Messianic, or Christologic, in their teachings. 

Chrift was in and formed the sum and substance of 
religion then as now; but as those people lived before 
his personal appearance, and as that personal appearance 
was so vital to religion, and therefore necessary to be 
known, or at least partially known, and as this truth 
could only be taught by pre-rej)resentatio7i, it was symbol- 
ized by these suitable religious actions. 

And so these two things were thus taught in those ages. 
But ceremonies have no such uses now, for the very simple 
reason that, as to the former, it would be useless, because 
far better instruments of teaching are at hand ; and as to 
the latter, the thing is impossible, because an event can- 
not be foreshown after it has happened. 

According to much of the refined notions of these times, 
such animal sacrifices and other rude devotions which we 
see in the early days of the Church, are a very savage 
and absurd mode of promoting devout sentiments and re- 
ligious dispositions. And so we regard them as so many 
Jewish modes of worship, or things making up a formal 
or ceremonial religion ; whereas, they related not to Jews 
as such, but to the spirit and character of the age in 
which they were used. And so, if we look more care- 
fully into the then existing condition of things, the genius 
and habits of ancient nations, and the peculiar circum- 



WAS NOT ABOLISHED. 379 

stances of the Hebre^vs, these views and objections will 
vanish, and the great wisdom of these things will appear. 

Home's Introduction, vol. ii., page 120, quotes as follows 
from Tappan's Lectures: *^When the practice of sacri- 
ficing was first appointed, the use of letters was probably 
unknown ; consequently the mode of instruction by visible 
emblems or s}niibols was both indispensable and highly 
beneficial. In such a state of things the ofiering of 
animal victims was made to answer for the more simple 
and rational devotion wiiich words are now happily fitted 
to express. "When we consider sacrifices, with all their 
attendant rites, as appointed by God in order to assist 
the religious instruction, improvement, and consolation of 
man, we must conclude that the Most High would in the 
first instance clearly explain every part of this institu- 
tion; otherwise it could not answer its proposed ends. 
Now, if the moral import of sacrifices wxre thus ex- 
plained, the utility of them to mankind, in their rude 
and simple state, is beyond calculation. In untutored 
man, reason is weak, the mental feelings are heavy and 
rough, while sense, imagination, and passion, are the 
leading avenues both to the understanding and heart. 
To man thus situated, the appointment of sacrifices is 
peculiarly adapted, for they convey a most pathetic and 
awful address to his very senses, and thus rouse him to the 
most serious and impressive reflections. The frequent spec- 
tacles of bleeding and smoking victims, siifiering and 
atoning for the guilty sufierers, would give them the 
deepest impressions of the purity, justice, and majesty of 
God, of the evil of transgressions, of their own ill-desert, 
and of the necessity of some adequate atonement, and of 
the readiness of the Deity to pardon the penitent. The 
numerous and diversified offerings of the ancient Jews, 
with the striking pomp which preceded and attended 



380 THE SO-CALLED CEREMONIAL LAW 

them, were fitted not only to excite and express the most 
reverential, humble, and grateful devotion, but also to 
give the best direction to the whole temper and con- 
duct. The many washings and purifications enjoined pre- 
vious to the oblation of sacrifice, were not only physically 
beneficial in the Eastern countries, but directly intended to 
impress a simple people with a scrupulous regard to inward 
and moral piirity, especially in all their approaches to the 
Deity. 

"That this was the primary intention of those ceremo- 
nies, was a maxim frequently and solemnly enforced. In 
the early ages, the language of these well-chosen emblems 
could not fail to be well undersood and strongly felt. Above 
all, the frequent sacrifices of the Jewish law were intended 
to prefigure and gradually to prepare men for the great 
atoning sacrifice of the promised Messiah. In a word, the 
religion of the Jews and that of Christians form one great 
and harmonious plan. The Jews saw gospel truth in its 
early and gradual dawn; we behold it in its meridian 
splendor. When Christ appeared, the candid and pious 
Jews embraced him, because they saw in him a glorious 
counterpart, a perfect accomplishment of their own rites 
and predictions." 

These are sensible, practical observations. They con- 
form to the historic facts ; and they intimate the glory, 
wisdom, and beauty of the divine laws so admirably 
adapted to the varied circumstances of mankind. As the 
mind of man is constituted, knowledge can be received only 
progressively. In the infancy of human knowledge re- 
ligion could not be taught as it is now. It was necessary 
therefore, since the mental faculties are arranged as they 
are, that a knowledge of God and religion should be im- 
parted in the early ages by successive lessons— necessary 
there should be a first lesson as a starting-point ; and from 



>VAS NOT ABOLISHED. 381 

this primary principle a gradual, successive progression on- 
ward. This is the way all knowledge is attained. 

Now, these elementary lessons must at some time be laid 
aside, because somewhere along in the line of history they 
become both useless and burdensome. But there is no repeal 
of a law. Indeed, it is by no means historically true, that 
these ceremonial observances, now in disuse, were laid aside 
at the same time, or in the same ages of the world. They 
went gradually into disuse as they became useless. At the 
time of Christ many of them had long since ceased. The 
synagogue, or congregational system of worship, which 
began to grov*^ into practice in the time of the captivity, 
hundreds of years before Christ, superseded many of the 
elementary or juvenile teachings. But such of those cere- 
monies as looked forward to the coming of Messiah, must 
necessarily abate at that time. That is a part of their 
law. 

These ancient ceremonial modes of teaching abated not 
because they were ceremonial, as many seem to teach, but 
for other reasons wholly. A ceremonial law in religion is 
as useful now as it ever was ; and it would be a wide perver- 
sion of truth to say that the Church had not now a cere- 
monial law, in the same sense it had two or three thousand 
years ago. Surely Church ceremonies have not ceased, 
though some particular ceremonies have ; some have become 
antiquated, obselete, useless ; and others belonged naturally 
and necessarily to the ante-Messianic period of the Church. 
And so the Saviour tells us plainly that he came not to 
destroy the law, but to fulfill it. All the laws of religion 
exist now that ever did; and yet animal sacrifices and 
circumcision have ceased ; but they have ceased for reasons 
— reasoi^ contemplated and provided for in the law itself. 
And then it must be kept carefully in mind that these sac- 
rificial observances are not laws of relioion in the sense of 



882 THE SO-CALLED CEREMONIAL LAW 

doctrines or ethics. They are mere rules for the inculcat- 
ing of these Christian principles. They are but external 
and incidental modes of teaching religion. And so — ^let it be 
carefully noted — of circumcision and passover. They are 
not sacraments ; they are mere external or physical modes 
of administering the sacraments. Sacrament means obli- 
gation — religious obligation. In ordinary parlance, we 
speak of circumcision or of baptism as one of the sacra- 
ments. The meaning is, that these are the two ritual modes 
— the former before, and the latter after, the death of 
Christ, in which the sacrament (or obligation) of personal 
homage or fealty to God is administered. And so, as else- 
where fully explained, passover was the mode before Christ, 
and the sacred Supper since, of admininistering the sacra- 
ment which binds us as members of a community to God 
through Christ. Sacrament, like any other kind of obli- 
gation, is one thing; the physical manner in which you 
administer a sacrament, is another. 

There is a man who to-day assumes legal control over 
his patrimony, and over which he had no lawful control 
yesterday ; but no law has been repealed. It is all in simple 
pursuance of the law made ages ago. There was no new 
law made last January, requiring that thenceforward for 
one year all written instruments should be dated 1867. 
The one law of chronology contemplated and provided for 
these changes ; and so the law applies accordingly. 

And yet some writers have carried this irrational notion 
of repeal and reenactment so far, as to inquire why any of 
the Old Testament laws are to be considered in force in 
Christian times, imless specially reenacted. 

Can any man state any thing that happened at or about 
the time of Christ, that required a reenactment of some of 
the laws of God ? Had the advent of the Messiah any thing 
to do with such a necessity? Why such a necessity at this 



WAS NOT ABOLISHED. 383 

time more than at any other ? Did universal nature dissolve 
into chaos ? Did man's constitution dissolve and become a 
different thing? and he a different being? Was there an in- 
terregnum in providence, in man, and in nature? Why- 
did some laws require reenactment more than others ? 
Was the law of the attraction of gravitation reenacted ? 
and why not, if any laws were ? 

Ritual observances, divinely prescribed, are common to 
all ages of the Church — indeed, to religion itself Some 
of these forms, which were highly necessary in early ages, 
could not, and others must not, be continued ; and so the 
law in that regard, having answered the end of its en- 
actment, did not extend itself beyond its own provisions. 

The sum of it is that, first, there is in the Old Testa- 
ment no such distinct and separate ceremonial laiv as we 
oftentimes read of. In the Old as well as in the New, 
some of the instructions relate to religious ceremonies ; but 
I do not know that there are fewer ceremonies in use in 
the Church since the Christian era than before. It is 
true, however, that Church ceremonies or observances are 
more specifically prescribed in the Old Testament than 
in the New. But none can fail to see the reasons for 
this : first, the new, unlettered condition of the world re- 
quired it ; and secondly, the ante-Messianic state of the 
Church required it. But it had no more to do with Jews 
as such, as many teach, than it had with climate or geog- 
raphy. 

And secondly, no laws divinely prescribed to man have 
ever been divinely repealed. Indeed, this is impossible. 
Still, however, many laws of religion, of a more or less in- 
tegral character, having accomplished the divine purposes 
in the enactment, no longer require to be met by the same 
external performances, though the principle in the law 
never ehano-es nor can chans^e. 



384 THE SO-CALLED CEREMONIAL LAW 

It is a mistake which many seem to run into, to suppose 
that the Jewish ceremonial observances were always the 
same. These ceremonies apply to a Church spreading over 
considerable countries, and a period of fifteen hundred 
years. In these different ages and countries there was all 
the variety naturally incident to human affairs. Apply 
this principle to the Church in the last fifteen hundred 
years, and we have a fair illustration. As in the latter 
instance, so in the former, we find a few prominent things 
which were uniform ; but even they did not by any means 
always present the same outward appearances. The great 
variety always observable in different countries and dif- 
ferent ages, in manners, customs, government, and habi- 
tudes of life, sometimes in war, civil or foreign, and some- 
times in freedom, and sometimes bondage — now with this 
kind of civil government and now with that — must have 
produced, as the history plainly shows, much variety in 
these mere forms of worshiping ; and also, as previously 
noted, some of these ceremonies gradually went into dis- 
use and became obselete, as the obvious reasons for them 
ceased to exist. 

These reasons were found in the different means and 
instruments used in teaching in different ages of the 
world. The chief means now used in conveying and 
diffusing thought are of but recent origin. Symbolic 
actions in former times were used as didactic language is 
now used. Formerly there was no literature ; now written 
language moves and governs every thing. That which 
can be done now in a few lessons, formerly required sev- 
eral ages of cumbrous, unwieldy teaching. For thousands 
of years the Church had probably no written Bible ; and 
then, after a time, it had only the Ten Commandments 
written on stone, and carefully kept in the sacred chest. A 
Bible for the people is a thing only of yesterday almost. 



WAS NOT ABOLISHED. 885 

So as you travel back in the history of the Church in those 
early ages, from period to period, you meet many symbolic 
instruments, then useful, but which have long since been 
superseded by instruments of greater facility. 

I am well aware that the word abolished is used two 
or three times by our English translators, in connection 
with the issues of those ceremonies which pre-represented 
the appearance of Christ. But this, for the reasons above, 
must be understood in the sense of terminated, or issued. 
They met their natural and contemplated end, and ceased. 

13 



386 THE JEWISH SUCCESSION — 



CHAPTER LVIII. 

CONCERNING THE JEWISH SUCCESSION, AND THE PECULIAR 
MARK IN THE JEWISH FEATURES. WHERE IS THE 
FORMER? AND WHAT IS THE CAUSE AND MEANING OF 
THE LATTER? 

4 

We now approach some points of peculiar interest in 
this discussion ; and in doing so, we inquire directly. Where 
is the Jeivish lineal succession to he found at the present day f 
Do the descendants of the ante-Messianic Jews exist to-day 
as a distinct people ? This question comes fairly before us 
without any misunderstanding. At the time of the birth 
of Christ, and previously, a people called Jews were well 
known and easily identified. They were well known at least 
by their religion ; but that they continued a distinct people 
has, I think, been more frequently assumed than shown. 

Bishop Burnet has treated " their continuing a distinct peo- 
pW^^ it is said, with great ability in his " Four Discourses'^ 
p. 8-10. Dr. Doddridge makes special mention of it. Addi- 
son — Spectator, No. 495 — says : " The Jews are looked upon 
by many to be as numerous at present as they were formerly 
in the land of Canaan." By formerly, he means at or 
before the birth of Christ. He regards " the Jews " of the 
present day as forming the entire living descendants of " the 
Jews " at the birth of Christ. They are regarded as one 
people, remaining whole and entire ; and that they have been 



MARK IN THE JEWISH FEATURES. 387 

kept separate, unmixed and distinct, is regarded a remark- 
able providence. 

This history is very easy-going, looks very simple, no one 
can misunderstand it. A Jew is physiologically marked. 
These marks distinguish and identify him as a Jew, It is 
the mark of Jacob. It follows him generation after gener- 
ation, wherever he goes. The mark is physical, national. 
It is the mark of a family, a birth-mark. No descendant 
of Jacob is without it, and no other man possesses it. 

The principal difficulty with this theory is, that it is his- 
torically untrue ; it varies widely from the well-settled his- 
tory. The peculiar features by which we identify a Jew at 
the present day, although they are certainly very distinct 
and unmistakable, the world over, do not mark his lineal 
descent from Jacob, but some different thing. There are 
certainly many, many thousands, and it is next to certain 
that there are many millions, of people now living who have 
descended lineally from the ancient Jews, and who have no 
such distinguishing mark; and secondly, this same mark 
attaches to many who are not of the lineage of Jacob. The 
mark has probably no reference to family, in an ancient 
line, but to a different thing. 

It has been previously shown from Scripture that a very 
large number at least of the Jews at the time of Christ 
received Mm, and for a long time composed the entire 
Church, in connection with the apostles. For about ten or 
twelve years after the death of Christ, the entire Church 
consisted of Jews — that is, of those who had been previously 
called Jews, until the followers of the apostles must have 
amounted to hundreds of thousands, if not to millions. 
Christianity — as the Church came to be called — began with 
Jews exclusively. They were its sole friends and propa- 
gators; and most devoutly and heroically did they stand 
up in its defense against Jews and Gentiles, against all op- 



388 THE JEWISH SUCCESSION — 

posers of true religion from all quarters. At the very first 
opportunity that ofiered, three thousand of them openly 
espoused Christ at one place ; and immediately afterward, 
here, there, and on all occasions, they openly declared for 
Christ by multitudes upon multitudes. Let any one read 
the first ten or twelve chapters of Acts, or even my previous 
chapter on this subject, and he will see how untrue it is for 
an author to say that "the Jews, all except a few, rejected 
Christ." Such a remark, however frequently made, or by 
whomsoever, is an unpardonable violation of the plainest 
history. It is impossible to determine with any thing like 
certainty w^hether the larger or the smaller portion of the 
whole body of Jews received or rejected Christ. Certain it 
is, that Jews w^ho wxre justly and truly called Christians 
must in those days have amounted to hundreds of thousands, 
and most probably to millions. 

Now, since this fact is certain, the question just now 
before us is. Where is their lineal succession ? The two 
classes of Jews — those w^ho received and rejected Christ — in 
a few years — as before explained — became widely separate. 
Both classes — with an exception common to both, which 
will be explained in a few minutes — were of course Jews 
by birth, or by religion ; that is, the one was as much so as 
the other. But as religious parties, the one was now called 
Jews, and the other Christians. And they have remained 
separate, and have been so denominated ever since. 

Now, the lineal succession of the rejecting Jews, or the 
"Jews'' — as they afterw^ard came to be exclusively called — 
is easily seen. They are. the people generally known as 
Jews ; they have the mark, and they alone have it The 
other Jews — as clearly and purely Jews as they — ( last year 
they were all one, and now the very same persons, called 
by another name on a mere religious account) — ^where is 
their lineal succession ? They have no Jewish mark ; they 



MARK IN THE JEWISH FEATURES, 389 

have no mark. Where are they ? Where are the descend- 
ants of the three thousand Jews who declared for Christ at 
Pentecost? and the "five hundred brethren/' and the "five 
thousand" — the "many" so frequently mentioned — those 
spoken of as "all men" — the "multitudes" so frequently 
spoken of — "the people," mentioned more than once in 
this connection — "Samaria" — "a great company of the 
priests" — the "myriads" — indeed, the whole apostolic 
Church for ten years or more, every man and woman of 
them being Jews — have they no lineal succession ? Beyond 
all question, their children — numbering millions — are now 
alive, in the world somewhere ; and I repeat the question, 
Why do not they wear the Jewish mark ? 

It is plain, then, that " the Jew^s " — the whole body living 
at and before Christ — have not " continued a distinct peo- 
ple." It is only one branch of them who maintain this pe- 
culiar distinction ; and w^e proceed to inquire, How^ is this 
to be accounted for ? 

The following hypothesis is by some regarded as most 
probable : 

That this mark is not the sign of a race, but of an apostasy. 
It does not mark a lineage, but the greatest, the most won- 
derfiil, and most criminal of all human apostasies. 

This greatest, highest, and by far the most criminal of all 
apostasies ever know^n in the history of religion, w^as visited 
by the heavy curse of Almighty God. He thus laid his 
hand, not upon the Jews, as a people — not by any means on 
the descendants of Jacob, as such — not upon his apostles, 
and followers, and the apostolic Church — all of whom are 
"well known to have been Jew^s — bid upon those Jews who so 
ruthlessly and criminally repudiated Judaism, denied the relig- 
ion of Scripture, and thus opposed and revolted from the Christ 
of mankind. The curse rested upon the apostates ; and 
there the mark of the curse remains to this day. Here, 



390 THE JEWISH SUCCESSION — 

and here only, lies the mystery of "their continuing a dis- 
tinct people.'' The Jews, as a race, never have continued a 
distinct people in a very remarkable length of time, beyond 
the same thing in other surrounding nations, except, per- 
haps, in the ages of their very remote antiquity ; but the 
apostate Jews are, in this regard, a wonder in the world. 
The Jewish mark follows their descendants, wherever found 
in the apostasy. 

Or, the following may perhaps explain it better : When 
the two parties of Jews became separate, they were very 
hostile to each other. The apostates regarded the Chris- 
tians with the deepest hatred, and held them in utter social 
non-intercourse. And for some cause or other, they held all 
people in the same light. And thus, by constant, exclusive 
intermarriage among themselves, their physiognomy, what- 
ever it chanced to be eighteen hundred years ago, remained 
the same. Since that time they have had no influx, and 
almost no outflow. In either case there is little or no inher- 
itance from Jacob about it. 

And so who among ourselves knows whether he himself 
is or is not a lineal descendant of Abraham, or of the 
Church as it existed at and before the Advent? The de- 
scendants of the early apostolic Church, amounting to hun- 
dreds of thousands, are somewhere — where are they ? 

But again : This well-known Jewish mark does not indi- 
cate a descent from Abraham lineally, for the reason that 
the people called Jews at the time of Christ were by no 
means all or generally regular descendants from that ancient 
fountain. In the course of fifteen hundred years they had 
been joined from without by proselytes to an aggregate so 
great that the pure, descending current from Jacob had be- 
come rather nominal than real. They were mostly a mixed 
blood. See our former remarks on this point. Where now 
in America are the exclusive descendants of certain English 



MARK IN THE JEWISH FEATURES. 391 

and Scottish families only two hundred years ago ? If not 
kept perfectly pure, blood mixes with wonderful rapidity in 
even a few centuries. 

After the Hebrews had been one or two hundred years in 
Palestine, there was among them little or no pure blood in 
the line of the twelve patriarchs ; and at the time of Christ, 
this mixture was, of course, common to both rejecting and 
receiving Jews. So that since that time, and in that period 
only, the rejecting or apostate portion of the Jews have 
" continued a distinct people." The remark of the Specta- 
tor, of Bishop Burnet, and the many authors who have 
copied them, is not correct, therefore, when predicated of 
" the Jews," in the sense intended, but only of the apostate 
Jews and their descendants. 



392 THE RESTORATION OP THE JEWS- 



CHAPTER LIX. 

THE RESTORATION OF THE JEWS — BLUNDER CORRECTED. 

The history of the posterity of the twelve patriarchs pre- 
sents some points of peculiar interest. Many prophecies in 
both the Old and New Testaments are understood by many 
to foreshadow the final restoration^ or inbringing to the land 
of Palestine, of this people under the gospel system. And 
so that seems to be a debated question. But it seems plain 
to me that before that question can be debated, a previous 
question of vital importance must be settled. 

Who are to he restored f What persons, or what classes 
of persons, does the restoration refer to ? To say it relates 
to Jews, does not answer this question. By the term "Jews,*' 
do you mean the entire living posterity of Jacob ? or what 
branch or branches of the many divisions and subdivisions 
of this vast ancient family are to be included ? And are 
the millions of other people, with no original connection 
with the house of Jacob, but who in various ages became 
Jews by embracing the revealed religion, and the progeny 
of which became thoroughly incorporated with the Jews by 
intermarriage, and, as the Scripture says, " became Jews,'* 
are they to be included ? Or, is it meant to include only 
the nation and people known as Jews in the Saviour's time, 
and their posterity, whether they descended lineally from 
Jacob or not? Do the "Jews," who are to be restored to 



BLUNDER CORRECTED. 393 

Palestine, mean the peculiar people now living in many 
parts of the world, and known as Jews, and who are the 
lineal descendants of that part of the Jewish people who 
eighteen hundred years ago apostatized from the Jewish 
faith by denying our Saviour ? Or, lastly, are they an en- 
tirely different class of people, whom the Scripture calls 
Jews truly and properly, in contradistinction from those 
before -mentioned persons who falsely call themselves 
Jews ? 

The expressions used in Scripture denoting the persons or 
people to be " restored," are by no means definite. Some- 
times they are called " my brethren,'' or " my kinsmen, ac- 
cording to the flesh ;" sometimes " the children of promise," 
" Israel," " his people," " the outcasts of Israel ;" sometimes 
" the olive-tree," or " my flock," " the remnant of his peo- 
ple," " those that came of Jacob," or " the house of Judah," 
etc., etc. 

Now, the question is. How are you going to find and des- 
ignate the persons meant by these various expressions? 
The Church of God at the time of Christ was generally 
called the Jews, or rather, we now generally call it by that 
nam^ ; but it is certain that it then embraced but a compar- 
atively small portion of the then existing lineal posterity of 
Jacob. Probably not one-fourth, and may be not one-tenth, 
of the natural posterity of the twelve patriarchs were then 
in the Church, and so called Jews. And very soon after 
this we see the Jews divided into two widely distinct com- 
munities. One of these branches retained the name of 
Jews, while the other, by mere adventitious circumstances, 
after some years, took the name of Christians. And yet we 
are told in Scripture, in John viii. 39, and Eev. ii. 9, iii. 9, 
etc., that the party called Christians were really and truly 
the Jews, and that the former were falsely and improp- 
erly called Jews. 



394 THE RESTOEATION OF THE JEWS — 

It might be said that these Christain Jews were so "few" 
in number as to amount to almost nothing. This notion 
has b-een elsewhere sho^^^l to be a wide, wide error. In Acts 
xxi. 20 — not to cite more than fifty other passages that 
might be cited in proof — we are told they amounted to 
"myriads," or "many ten thousands," meaning numbers 
immense, almost beyond computation. All the books so 
read the word " thousands " in that place. 

Mr. Watson — Theological Institutes, p. 109 — says: "A 
future restoration awaits this people." And I ask, What 
people ? By what rule is it decided that these ancient proph- 
ecies refer to those Jews who apostatized from their religion, 
rather than to those who remained in the faith, and were 
calkd Christians? Why do these ancient prophecies fol- 
low the forty-two thousand or forty-three thousand Jews 
who returned from the captivity in Babylon, and their de- 
scendants particularly and exclusively, rather than the 
hundreds of thousands or millions who scattered out into 
the world in a hundred different ways and directions, and 
did not return to Jerusalem and their posterity ? It will 
be rcynembered that at the period of the return from Bab- 
ylon, about ^ye hundred and thirty-five years before Christ, 
the entire people of the world distinctively known and 
recognized as Jews, were reduced to less than forty-three 
thousand in number. The others — millions in number — 
had gone out by leakage in many ways, and h^d become 
mixed and mingled with the people of the earth. 

The history of the Jews shows, beyond question, that the 
people now living, and distinctively known as such, compose 
but the smallest fraction of the national posterity of the 
twelve patriarchs. This point is elaborated more fully else- 
where in this essay. And, as the promises in regard to 
" restoration"— as it is called — refer, or seem to refer, to the 
posterity of Jacob generally, the question I raise is, How, 



BLUNDER CORRECTED. 395 

or by what rule, are they to be confined to this particular 
remnant? 

This is a question of some importance. I only suggest it 
in this place without elaborating it, as I have done else- 
where. But why may not these prophecies refer to the 
"many ten thousands," or the "myriads,'' the "multitudes" 
of Jews so frequently mentioned, w^ho became, or were after- 
ward called Christians, at the time of the preaching of the 
apostles ? They were Jews, undistinguishable from other 
Jews* And how is it determined that the prophecies in 
question follow this branch rather than that ? The terms 
of the prophecies apply at least as well to these as to those. 

And farther, considering that the Scripture clearly recog- 
nizes a spiritual as wxU as a fleshly Israel, and that it 
attaches far more importance to the former than to the 
latter, and that contingency is interlarded all through the 
prophecies ; and since it is certain that these modern Jews 
are but a mere scattering of the entire lineal posterity of 
the twelve patriarchs, is it at least not highly probable 
that those who are looking for the Scriptures to be fulfilled 
in these respects, by the conversion of the apostate or 
modern Jews, are looking for that which has long since 
been accomplished in such Christians as the Scriptures de- 
clare to be true Jews ? 

The modern Jews, we are told in the Scriptures, are not 
Jews ; they only " say they are Jews, and are not." They 
are " of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, 
and are not, but do lie." 

Then I ask if this long argument about the " restoration 
of the Jews " presents a logical issue at all. What is the 
affirmation ? and what is denied ? 



396 DOCTRINE OF SEPARATING BETWEEN 



CHAPTER LX. 

THIS DOCTRINE OF SEPARATING BETWEEN THE "JEWISH** 
AND "christian'' RELIGIONS, LEADS TO AN OPEN RE- 
PUDIATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. 



If there be any portion of the Old Testament which is 
not thoroughly and essentially Christian, then that much, 
at least, ought to be expunged from the Scriptures, because 
true religion is wholly and essentially Christian. 

And so also, if the whole or any part of it falls short of 
Christianity, then that much of it is defective, and ought 
not to be used to teach religion to the people. 

Neander — Zdfe of Christ, p. 57 — says: "We must con- 
clude, however, that if John did recognize Jesus as Messiah, 
he applied to him all his Old Testament ideas of Messiah, 
as the founder of a visible kingdom. With these views, he 
would expect that Christ would bring about the public re- 
cognition of his office by his own Messianic labors, without 
the aid of his testimony." 

Then there are " Old Testament ideas of Messiah, as the 
founder of a visible kingdom " ! Then the Old Testament 
t^ehes that which is not true ; for Messiah never was, nor 
was ever intended, to be the founder of such a kingdom. 
Either Neander or the Old Testament, therefore, teaches 
erroneously. But in either case, the learned divine plainly 
repudiates the Old Testament. But I hold that the Old 



THE JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. 397 

Testament and the New Testament ideas of Messiah are ex- 
actly alike, without an iota of difference. 

Mr. Coleman — Ancient Christianity Exemplified , p. 91 — 
says : " The grand characteristic of the Christian religion, 
in distinction from the Jewish — of the religion of the New 
Testament, contrasted with that of the Old Testament — was, 
that it utterly excluded all idea of a mediating priest- 
hood,'* etc. 

This question of a mediating priesthood has been previ- 
ously looked at ; and I now call attention to the contrast 
and distinction said to exist between these two systems of re- 
ligion, as is clearly affirmed. And I inquire, Is it possible 
there can be any such difference ? Is the New Testament 
the divine standard of divine religion ? Then why not be 
consistent; and exclude outright, and in terms, as Mr. Cole- 
man does by necessary implication, all religious teaching 
which differs from it? 

But, I hold it is not true that there is any " religion of 
the Old Testament," nor any " religion of the New Testa- 
ment," nor any " Jewish religion," nor any " Christian re- 
ligion," in the sense intended. You might as well talk of 
the religion of Matthew, and the religion of the Acts of the 
Apostles, and ^' contrast^' them. There is no "character- 
istic difference" between "the religion" of the different 
parts of the Bible. 

We have a Bible — a revealed Bible — and but one. No 
part of it is better or more holy than any other part. Who 
is this feeble, short-sighted man that sits in judgment on 
the revelation of God? that classes off revealed wisdom, 
and decides that this is defective, that that is a little better, 
and that that is good ? 

It is an impeachment of the divine perfections to suppose 
it possible for God to reveal some things at one time which 
are superior to something revealed at another time. St 



398 DOCTRINE OF SEPAKATING BETWEEN 

PauFs interpreters are at fault. There are things explained 
more fully in Isaiah than in Obadiah ; but who will dare to 
elevate the one above the other ? God could not outdo him- 
self and be perfect. 

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is 
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruc- 
tion in righteousness ; that the man of God may be perfect, 
thoroughly furnished unto all good works." And it is well 
to remember that St. Paul here has exclusive reference to 
the Old Testament, for the New was not then in being. 

Schaff, in his History of the Apostolic Church, devotes 
several pages (139-143) to prove that Judaism was a system 
preparatory to the introduction of Christianity — the true 
religion ; and was superior to heathenism. At page 140 we 
read : " In the first place, we find that Judaism, along with 
the pure development of divine revelation, embodied also 
more or less human error and corruption.'' 

That seems to me a desecration of sacred things ! No, 
sir ; it is impossible ! There is not one word of human error 
from the first of Genesis to the last of Malachi. 

Again he tells us : " Thus Judaism and heathenism, not- 
withstanding their essential difference, have some common 
features and connecting links." 

This is also making very free with sacred things ; and as 
to the thing stated, I deny it in Mo, I deny that in what is 
called the religion of heathens, there is one feature or con- 
necting link in it in common with Judaism. Heathenism 
does not know even God. It is all wrong. Heathen men 
do and cherish a good many things in common with Chris- 
tians ; but it is not their religion that so disposes them. 

Again he tells us, page 165 : " It (the religion of the Old 
Testament) has the only true notion and worship of God, 
who is the foundation of religion ; in other words, it is mon- 
otheisni and the worship of Gody as opposed to polytheism, 



THE JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. 399 

dualism, and pantheism, and the empty worship of idols 
and of nature." 

The religion of the Old Testament, contrasted with, or even 
distinguished from, Christianity— if you could so contrast 
it — is monotheism; and upon that hypothesis Schaff is 
right. The religion of modern Jews is monotheism ; and 
if it be the same as " the Jewish religion '' before Christ, 
or " the Mosaic religion," or " the religion of the Old Tes- 
tament," or " Judaism," or whatever you choose to call it — 
for these are but different names for the same thing— then 
Christianity, from philosophic necessity, presents the same 
opposition to it, under whatever name it be given, as it does 
to any other form of deism. Let our arguments be con- 
sistent. The circumstance of monotheism having but one 
God, does not give it a feature in common with Christianity. 
The worshipers of the sun recognize but one God. 

The simple teaching of Schaff here is, that the nearest 
point of approach of " the religion of the Old Testament " 
to that of the New is, that it recognizes but one God. And 
this is Christian theology; and historic of the apostolic 
Church! Schaff is a pupil of Neander, living in this 
country, and professor in a theological college. 

But still, Schaff goes but one step farther than many 
others, and in precisely the same direction. The very 
moment you begin to speak of " the religion of the Old 
Testament," and the religion of " Christianity," in distinc- 
tion from each other, and consider the latter superior to the 
former, then you set yourself up as a judge of the merits 
of the divine teachings, and subject the wisdom of Infinity 
to the arbitrament of perhaps the feeblest of all creatures 
in the universe, who can reason at all. 

Dr. Jimeson, in his Notes on the XXV. Articles, is undoubt- 
edly correct in saying that, " The Bible is but one book ; it 
is the work of but one author ; and has but one common 



400 THE JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. 

object ; though different men, and at different times, and in 
different places, were employed in its composition. These 
men were under the inspiration of but one God, who is 
perfect in his knowledge of the past, the present, and the 
future, and therefore cannot in any degree contradict him- 
self." 

Jehovah has spoken but few words to man in human lan- 
guage. These words are found in the Scriptures of the Old 
and New Testaments. They are precious words of divine 
religious teaching. They are wise words, right words, true 
words. It becomes man to listen, not to criticise and judge, 
among these lessons. Religion divinely revealed — and, 
therefore, exactly true — is breathed forth in every part of it. 
It is all profitable. None of it is abrogated, because it is 
all true ; none of it is second-rate, because it is all divine. 



THE BETTER COVENANT. 401 



CHAPTEE LXI 



now ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND THE "BETTER COVENANT 
ilSTABLISHED UPON BETTER PROlVnSES"? 



On this point I must beg pardon of some of St. Paul's in- 
terpreters. Dr. Clarke, on Hebrews viii. 6, says : *^ The Old 
Covenant referred to earthly things, the New Covenant to 
heavenly ; the Old Covenant had promises of secular good, 
the New Covenant of spiritual and eternal blessings. As 
far as Christianity is preferable to Judaism ; as far as Christ 
is preferable to Moses ; as far as spiritual blessings are pre- 
ferable to earthly blessings ; as far as the enjoyment of God 
throughout eternity is preferable to the communication of 
earthly good during time ; so far does the New Covenant 
exceed the Old." And he tells us that he uses the word 
Covenant as synonymous with Testament. 

And one of the Articles of Eeligion of the Methodist 
Church in England and America reads as follows : " The 
Old Testament is not contrary to the New, for both in the 
Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to man- 
kind by Christ, who is the only mediator," etc. 

Here is certainly a contradiction. I believe the Article ; 
and I farther suggest, that if the Old Testament promises 
secular good, earthly blessings only, it is with doubtful pro- 
priety, if not manifest error, that the Doctor calls it a sys- 
tem of religion. Eeligion, in the nature of the thing, has 



402 THE BETTER COVENANT 

to do with the affairs of the next world ; otherwise it is 
mere social ethics. 

The idea of Paul in regard to a better Covenant, upon 
better promises, cannot be made to mean that the one pos- 
sesses superior moral or legal excellence above the other. 
This would lead us into the absurdity of supposing that 
some of the divine words or works lacked, or were wanting 
in some possible good. The words and works of God are 
all jpei^fect in every sense. Then we must find some other 
interpretation. 

And so let it be remembered that the plan of the Al- 
mighty was, that Christ — the common Saviour — should de- 
lay his personal appearance among men for a time. This, we 
are taught, was necessary ; at least it was so. And so previ- 
ous to his coming, as well as since, it was necessary that re- 
ligion — ^the only religion of God — should be taught. But 
it was impossible, in the nature of things, it coidd be taught, 
at least understandingly — so full when the Saviour could 
be spoken of only in anticipation as when he could be seen 
and known— when his death and atonement could be not 
only a truth taught, but a fact seen. And then, when his 
life and death could be pointed to as palpable, historic facts, 
and so become fixed and immovable in the mind, it might 
well be spoken of as better. But this superiority is not in 
the thing taught, but in the superior capacity of man now 
to receive it. 

A necessity arises out of the constitutional capacity of 
man to receive instruction, that it be administered to him 
gradually — one thought received creating a capacity for 
the lodgment of another, and so on. 

"When one man teaches better things than another, it is 
because he is more wise or more good ; or when the same 
man teaches better things at one time than another, it is be- 
cause of human imperfections ; but God is perfect. 



ESTABLISHED UPON BETTER PROMISES. 403 

Dr. Clarke, 1 think, is most certainly in error in tlie con- 
trast he draws above between Christ and Moses. Moses 
was no more the author of the Old Covenant than Doctor 
Clarke was. He probably never had half so much to do 
about it, nor labored so much in it. Kor is it probable he 
understood its theory so well. Christ was wholly and solely 
the author of both Testaments ; Moses was a mere instru- 
ment, or amanuensis. 

But is it true that the religion of the Old Testament had 
reference to merely " earthly things "? that its promises were 
of merely secula:? good? I italicize particular words pre- 
cisely as the Doctor does, to give them the exact relative 
meaning he intended. Do these Scriptures contain only 
"the communication of earthly good during time"? Were 
these the teachings which the Old Testament saints drew— 
and correctly drew — from the revealed Scriptures ? 

It is only when the Doctor (and others could easily be 
named in the same category) gets to explaining about the 
" more excellent ministry," the " better Covenant," and the 
"better promises," in Hebrews and other places, that he 
puts forth the strange doctrines quoted above. The partic- 
ular line of thought then before him is the two dispeivsations, 
the law and the gospel " contrasted ;" and overlooking, as I 
think, the true and simple import of those teachings, he 
suffers himself to go to the logical results of such premises, 
which is, that there is no true, proper Christian religion iu 
the Old Testament at all. 

But see the Doctor on Ezekiel iii., and such places. Here 
he makes the prophet teach the purest, fullest, and most 
thorough Christianity, in all its parts, and in all its depths. 
Read him on Ezek. xviii., and you will see Christianity as 
deep, and fiiU, and complete, as you may look for it in any 
part of the New Testament. Here the doctrine of eternal 
salvation, of eternal condemnation, of eternal life, and eter- 



404 THE BETTER COVENANT 

nal death, and the reasons upon which all are founded — as 
taught by Moses and the prophets, and Christ and the apos- 
tles — are fully and forcibly stated. Read him also on Luke 
xvi. 31. Here he urges and elaborates the full " sufficiency 
and perfection " of the writings of Moses and the prophets ; 
and he understands Luke to teach that the man who is not 
saved through the instrumentality of the things alluded to 
as taught in the Old Testament, cannot be saved at all. 
And this is, beyond question, the true teaching of Luke. 
Dr. Clarke has also a sermon on that subject, most forcibly 
elaborating the same doctrine. 

Burkitt — Notes on Hebrews viii. 7 — says of the " fault " 
spoken of therein : " By which we are not to understand 
any sinful fault, but defectiveness and imperfection only." 
He is mistaken still. " Defectiveness and imperfection " are 
not to be predicated of the words or works of the Almighty. 
In interpreting Scripture, or indeed any thing else, we must 
be careful not to violate settled principles. We must find 
some other explication. 

The word fault is perhaps not very well selected. As we 
commonly use it, it does not very accurately define the 
apostle's meaning. The word, however, has a good deal of 
latitude of definition, and when first used in this place, had 
more than it has now. The idea intended to be conveyed 
by the word is, that before the visible appearance of Christ, 
religious teachers could not, and therefore did not, point to 
the visible, historic death and resurrection of Christ as 
those did afterward. They taught — so far as they taught 
correctly — an atonement prospective, as to our senses, but 
as real, as when made visible to us. 

But this shortness, or lack of reach — a point particularly 
to be noted — is not in the thing taught, nor in the manner 
of teaching, but in the capacity of the human mind, and 
the circumstances of man, to receive the teaching. After 



ESTABLISHED UPON BETTER PROMISES. 405 

Christ's visible life and death, this was very much greater 
than previously. 

Some would teach us that God entered into a compact 
with man, in which salvation was offered him on conditions 
which were impracticable ; and that after the coming and 
w^ork of Christ, he made with him a different Covenant, or 
compact. God had now become more benevolent and mer- 
cifiil, and so offered him salvation on much easier condi- 
tions than those formerly stipulated. 

I do not so understand it. In the first place, there is no 
such Covenant as is supposed. Man is not an original con- 
tracting party at all. Salvation is wholly ex parte, Eelig- 
ion is grace. It is the free and undeserved grace of God. 
Religion is a Covenant in the sense that it is offered upon 
certain conditions ; it is a Covenant then only in respect to 
those who accept the amnesty, and comply with tl^e con- 
ditions. 

Now, this precise offer of mercy, on the same conditions — 
the conditions of the gospel — was made not only at differ- 
ent historic periods, but in very different states of the world, 
with respect to man's knowledge of the atoning sacrifice of 
Christ, which lies at the foundation of the whole. Before 
the manifestation of Christ — but certainly not before his 
being — ^before the visible transactions of the atonement 
had been seen, the atonement in all its vital bearings could 
be presented to the human understanding in but a partial, 
adumbrant, and indirect way. It was as full, complete, and 
as " faultless " as the nature of things admitted ; and in 
itself it was not in the slightest degree faulty, but was abso- 
lutely complete and perfect. Christ could not appear before 
his appearance; and hence the different modes. of teaching 
before and after his appearance. God was as merciful and 
benevolent four thousand years ago as he was two thousand 
years ago, or is now, or ever will be. 



406 THE MIDDLE WALL OF PARTITION. 



CHAPTER LXII. 

CONCERNING THE MIDDLE WALL OF PARTITION: — OF 
WHAT SORT OF ECCLESIASTICAL MASONRY WAS IT 
BUILT? AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE? AND HOW AND 
WHY WAS IT REMOVED? 

"Fey- he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath 
broken down the middle wall of partition between us." 

There has been a good deal of disputation among critics 
as to the proper understanding of this clause in the Epistle 
to the Ephesians. By many it is held that the middle wall 
of partition consisted in the mutual enmity subsisting be- 
tween the Jews and the Gentiles, which enmity several 
authors go on to say was caused by the religious ceremonies 
of the Jew^s, and which the Gentiles despised and would not 
submit to; and that Christ by his sufferings and death 
abolished this law, thus removing this wall of ceremonies ; 
and ,that now the two parties come together in one Church, 
and embrace the gospel as the new and pure religion. 

Many, how^ever, understand the wall as separating, not 
between Jews and Gentiles, but between both Jews and 
Gentiles on the one hand, and God on the other. 

Doddridge seems to include both ideas. He paraphrases 
thus : 

" For he is the procurer of our peace, who hath recon- 



THE MIDDLE WALL OF PARTITION. 407 

ciled us, whether Jews or Gentiles, to God and to each 
other, and hath so incorporated us into one Church, that it 
may be properly said he hath made both one, as to an 
interest in the favor of God, and in the privileges of his 
people; and that no difference might remain between us, 
he hath throimidown the middle wall of separation which 
divided us from each other." 

Burkitt understands that the breaking down of the wall 
reconciled the bitter enmity existing between Jews and Gen- 
tiles, and made them " one Church." Dr. Clarke uses nearly 
the same language, as do also Olshausen, Dick, Benson, 
and a few others. 

Macknight paraphrases as follows : " For he is the author 
of our good agreement; who, by dying for the Gentiles as 
Well as the Jews, hath made both one people of God, and 
hath broken down the law of Moses, by which, as the middle 
wall of separation in the temple, the Jews were fenced in as 
the people of God, and all others were excluded from that 
honor." And he farther says, "For the worship of God 
being limited by Moses to the temple at Jerusalem, the 
greatest part of the Gentiles could not come to Jerusalem to 
worship with the Jews." 

These remarks of Dr. Macknight are alarming — alarm- 
ing because of their plain contradiction of well settled his- 
toric truth. No, sir; nobody was ever "excluded" from the 
Church. 

The Jews were never " fenced in," but on the contrary, 
it was always the privilege of anybody and everybody to 
come into the Jewish Church ; and, then as now, the only 
condition of doing so, was to acknowledge God and his re- 
vealed religion, submit to his laws of grace and mercy, and 
be saved on the terms of the gospel. This was always the 
rule. 

By this middle wall, thus broken down, I simply under- 



408 THE MIDDLE WALL OF PARTITION. 

stand, first, that the "enmity" of which it consisted was not 
a hostile feeling between Jews, as such, and Gentiles. It 
was the same kind of enmity you always see entertained by 
irreligious people against the Church. Jews^ or the Jews, 
was the common name of the Church; and others hated 
them and their religion just as men do now, and always 
did, and for the same reasons. They hated them and their 
religion because the heart of man is enmity against God. 
Second, this hatred was more intense then and there than 
here with us, where all are nominally Christians. Those 
out of the Church opposed religion out and out. The Jews, 
they said, worshiped a Saviour not yet born — not yet in 
being. This religion was stark " foolishness." And seeing 
they had not the Scriptures, these objections, in their various 
forms, were very rigid and very intense. But the simple 
doing, openly before the world, of the things which Christ 
did, vindicated to a great extent in their eyes the wisdom 
and truth of these religious professions and truths. This or 
that of mere Church ceremonies, had little or nothing to do 
with it. The objection to religious ceremonies then was the 
same it is now. 

The actual presence of Christ in a populous country, him- 
self identified with the Church, the wonderful miracles he 
publicly performed, all crowned by a public and palpable 
resurrection from the dead, and strange ascension out of 
sight — these things demonstrated in the minds of the more 
sober and candid the truth of the religion of the Church, 
and so broke down the strong wall of their prejudices. , It 
did not remove their objections to religion, except with 
some, as everybody well knows, for they continued to exist, 
and do exist to this day, but in a more mild and approach- 
able form. 

The mere judicial repeal of a' Church rule of worship 
would have had no imaginable effect in the premises. How 



THE MIDDLE WALL OF PARTITION. 409 

could that " reconcile us, whether Jews or Gentiles, to God 
and to each other?'' Our Lord addressed to the eye of man 
the great religious doctrines which previously could only be 
spoken of hypothetically. These things constitute the great 
practical work which Christ did. 

Dr. Macknight's remark above, that " the worship of 
God being limited by Moses to the temple at Jerusalem, the 
greater part of the Gentiles could not come to Jerusalem to 
worship with the Jews," is strange indeed. And so he 
reasons, this difficulty being removed, the Gentiles became 
reconciled to the Church. 

To this I reply — First. The worship of God was never 
thus limited. Where is to be found one particle of evidence 
to support the assertion ? Secondly. The Church recognized 
no such limitation. For six or seven hundred years not 
one-hundredth part of the worship of God by Jews was per- 
formed in the temple. It was performed in little churches, 
erected for the purpose, all over the country. Those who 
lived in sight of the temple did not worship exclusively in 
it. There were over four hundred such houses of worship 
in the city of Jerusalem alone. Moreover — Thirdly. "What 
did these Gentiles know, or care indeed, about the partic- 
ular rules of the Church ? How came they ever to hear of 
such a man as Moses, or that he made laws ? There is not 
the slightest probability that one in ten thousand ever heard 
of Moses except such as attended the Jewish worship on 
the Sabbath, and there heard the Scriptures read. And it is 
highly presumably that such of them as attended with any 
regularity, and took much interest in the matter, became 
Jews by joining the Church. 

The gr^t difficulties which then existed as a. barrier to 
a gen^^l spread of religion were measurably removed, not 
surely by the mere repeal of some Church rules, but by the 
gr^t visible w^ork of Christ, demonstrating in the eyes of 



410 THE MIDDLE WALL OF PARTITION. 

those who had eyes to see, the great truths of revealed re- 
ligion. 

I insist that the people who lived then were natural 
people — lived, and thought, and acted naturally; and that 
the very brief historic notices of those times which we have 
are to be understood naturally 



RELiaiOT OF JMOSES AND OF CHRIST. 411 



CHAPTER LXIII. 

THE RELIGION OF MOSES AND OF CHRIST, OR JUDAISM 
AND CHRISTIANITY "CONTRASTED." 

Unfortunately for young readers^ and old ones, too, it 
is too common for some writers and other teachers to con- 
trast, either in express terms, or by fair implication, the re- 
ligion of Moses with that of Christ — Judaism with Chris- 
tianity ; leaving the impression that they are two distinct, if 
not opposing, systems of religion. 

Dr. Clarke says : "As far as Christ is preferable to Moses, 
so far does the New Covenant (or New Testament) exceed 
the Old.'' 

This, liko many other expressions of his, places Moses in 
the same relation to the Old Testament as Christ sustains to 
the New. But the truth is, that Moses has no such relation 
to the Old Testament. Christ, and he alone, was the proper 
author of both, to all intents and purposes, and in the very 
same sense. He did not write the language of any part of 
either with his own hand ; but he used Moses, and Isaiah, 
and Luke, and Paul, and others, in the stead of ink and 
paper, and in the productions of all of both. There is no 
more propriety in speaking of the religion of Moses than 
there would be in speaking of the religion of Matthew. All 
the religion of the Bible, in every sense, and in any shape, 
is the religion of Christ. 



412 THE RELIGION OE M0SE3 

And just in this connection we have a most unfortunate 
blunder in the Wesleyan Catechism, No. III. : 

" Question, What is Christianity ? 

^'Answer. The doctrines, morals, and manner of worship 
taught by Christ and his apostles, and recorded in the New 
Testament. 

" Question, "What is Judaism ? 

^'Answer, The religion and laws of the Jews, a people de- 
scended from Abraham. These are contained in the books 
of the Old Testament." 

This is at least plain ; and so the intelligent, unsophisti- 
cated youth, who pays strict attention to what he is taught, 
concludes that we, being Christians and not Jews, do not 
believe in the Old Testament. 

But then we read in the Methodist Discipline as follows : 
" The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, for both 
in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to 
mankind by Christ, who is the only mediator between God 
and man, being both God and man." 

That is true, but the Catechism is not. The Old Testa* 
ment religion, and those who follow it, are spoken of and 
contrasted with Christianity precisely as one would speak of 
Mormonism or Mohammedanism. 

I am well aware, however, that a strained, unnatural hy- 
percriticism might be brought forward in support of the 
Catechism ; but this is a reading which by a plain reader, 
especially a child, would never be thought of until by addi- 
tional teaching you unteach what the Catechism teaches. 
It says that in the New Testament you find the true " doc- 
trines, morals, and manner of worship;" and it is plainly 
held up in contrast before the eye of the pupil with the Old 
Testament, which it says contains " the religion and laws of 
the Jews." Whereas the plain truth is, that all the doctrines, 
all the moraky and even the manner of worship too, except 



AND OF CHRIST. 413 

in so far as the two chronological periods render this natu- 
rally impracticable, are found in both. 

Against the plain and natural doctrine of the Catechism 
I present the following readings, by "which we prove that 
Christianity is written in the Old Testament : "And the Lord 
spake unto Moses, saying/' "And the Lord spake by his 
servants the prophets." " For the commandment is a lamp, 
and the law is light, and the reproofs of instruction are the 
way of life." " Have I not written to thee excellent things 
in counsels and knowledge?" "Sanctify them through thy 
truth, (the Old Testament,) thy word is truth." "And from 
a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, (the Old Tes- 
tament,) which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, 
through faith which is in Christ Jesus." " Then opened he 
their understanding, that they might understand the Scrip- 
tures " (i. e. the Old Testament.) " If they hear not Moses 
and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one 
rose from the dead." "All Scripture (the Old Testament) is 
given by inspiration of God, and is (now to every one) prof- 
itable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction (of all errors,) 
for instruction in righteousness, that (by following these doc- 
trines) the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly fur- 
nished unto all good works " — not partially furnished, but 
thoroughly. 

I do not see how the Catechism can be defended. If by 
" Judaism " was meant the erroneous opinions or teachiogs 
of Jews, either before, at the time, or since the Christian 
era, then the reply is, that that is not " contained in the 
books of the Old Testament." And if it means, as it says, 
" the religion and laws " w^hich are written in the Old Tes- 
tament, then the reply is that that is inspiration-^-a part of 
our Christian Bible, and cannot, therefore, be spoken of as 
outside of Christianity, or different from it. Moreover, 
Christ and his apostles did not teach anew, originally — which 



414 THE RELiaiON OF MOSES 

is the natural meaning of the Catechism — either " doc- 
trines/' " morals," or " manner of worship." They taught 
only that which had been already taught. 

I would make the Catechism read on this wise : 

Question. What is Christianity ? 

Answer, The true religion, as revealed by Almighty God 
to mankind, showing our duty to God and man. It is writ- 
ten in the books of the Old and New Testaments. 

Question, What is Judaism ? 

Atiswer, Judaism proper is substantially the same religion 
as Christianity, it being all revealed from heaven. But be- 
fore the coming of Christ religion could not be so clearly 
revealed or understood as afterward ; and at that time also, 
all members of the Church were called Jews ; and so in that 
period religion was called Judaism. This term is also applied, 
by way rather of censure or reproach, to the false religion 
of those Jews who are infidels and reject the Saviour. 

Bishop Soule contrasts Moses and Christ, or the law and 
the gospel, in his sermon in Sermons from the College, on 
Heb. V. 9, 10, in the following manner : 

" In the Epistle to the Hebrews the apostle points out the 
difference between the law and the gospel, the dispensation 
of Moses and the dispensation of Jesus Christ, and shows 
wherein the latter is superior to the former." 

I do not know what distinct idea the Bishop intended to 
convey by the governing word superior, in the above sen- 
tence. He could not mean that in God's great work of 
human salvation, or any other work of the Almighty, some 
one part or principle in it had more moral or legal propriety 
or excellence than some other part. The works of God 
being all absolutely perfect, we cannot say that this or that is 
superior to or better than these or those. Feeble man can- 
not set himself up as judge among the works and ways of 
the Infinite. Their moral, legal, and prudential excellence 



AND OF CHRIST. 415 

is all quite beyond his reach ; and if this should seem to be 
done in an inspired writing, some other explication must be 
sought for, because that cannot be the true one. 

A few words farther on he says : "Moses, as a servant, was 
faithful in all his house. Hence, as the Son of God, he has 
a glory infinitely superior to Moses, and to all angels." 

I think the Bishop entirely mistakes the apostle's mean- 
ing at this point. It could hardly be believed that Paul, or 
any other person of intelligence, would undertake at that 
day to prove to a Jew that jOhrist was infinitely superior to 
Moses in every way. That was not only not a mooted 
question, but it was one of the very first things about relig- 
ion believed by all Jews of all classes. Paul never saw a 
Jew who did not hold, as part of his very alphabet of re- 
ligion, that the Christ was infinitely superior to Moses. 
Whatever diflTerences there might have been among Jews of 
that day on other subjects, there was certainly none on this. 

Paul was proving to his Hebrew brethren not any supe- 
rior excellence in Christ, but about Jesus, the man Jesus — 
who and what he was. Like hundreds of others, the Bishop 
fails to draw this wide and very important distinction. The 
great question was about Jesus — was he Christ ? Paul held 
that he was, but many of his brethren denied it. Th,is was 
the great question. If Moses — compared with Jesus as a 
mere man — would compare with Infinity ; and if Infinity 
beamed forth in Jesus, then Jesus must be Christ. The 
great, and only great, question of those times in the Church 
was, whether Christ — the Logos, the Emmanuel — did, or 
did not, appear in the man Jesus. 

As to the two difierent " dispensations " spoken of, it de- 
pends much upon the meaning attempted to be put upon 
that word of a score of meanings. In the sense most likely 
intended, it is not at all probable that St. Paul ever heard 
of any such things. 



416 WHAT KELIGION DID MOSES 



CHAPTER LXIV. 

WHAT RELIGION DID MOSES HIMSELF PROFESS AND TEACH? 

We have so much said about the Mosaic dispensation, 
and the Mosaic religion, that it may not be amiss to raise 
the direct question, What was the religion of Moses ? 

And to this question will any man doubt the propriety of 
the strict categorical answer — he was a Christian f Will it 
be said that he was more or less than a Christian ? Did he 
in any thing fall short of Christianity? Did he in any 
thing go beyond it ? On this precise point we are not left 
to conjecture. A Christian is one who believes and trusts 
in Christ as our Saviour. 

"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: 
there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye 
trust." John v. 45. 

This accusation, which is supposed might be brought 
against these erring Jews, was to be found in Moses's writ- 
ings. " For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed 
me, for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, 
how shall ye believe my words T 

Nothing could be plainer than this. Moses's religion was 
just right in the estimation of the Saviour. 

On this verse Doddridge makes a most excellent remark : 

" This is one of the most expressive passages that can be 
imagined, in which Moses, their great lawgiver, is repre- 



HIMSELF PROFESS AND TEACH? 417 

sented as looking down with indignation upon the elders 
who gloried in being the most distinguished of his disciples ; 
and seeing how injuriously they treated Jesus, the great 
prophet, turning himself to God, with severe accusation 
against them, and urging his own predictions as an aggra- 
vation of their inexcusable infidelity." 

*' Then they reviled him and said, Thou art his disciple, 
but we are Moses's disciples." John ix. 28. Here the 
proud, erring Pharisees scorned discipleship with Christ 
upon the ground that they were Moses's disciples ; and thus 
they contended that the two religions were different. But 
we all know that they were wholly wrong in their views. 
If they had stated the truth, and reasoned correctly, they 
would have claimed discipleship with Christ on the very 
ground that they were Moses's disciples. Those called 
Moses's disciples — that is, the followers of the writings of 
Moses and the other prophets — were Christians. Nothing 
could be more clearly stated than this is in the closing 
verses of Luke xvi. It is here stated in very strong lan- 
guage, and by a resistless argument, that there is neither 
religion nor salvation for man, other than that which is 
written in the Old Testament. This teaching may be ampli- 
fied, explained, and enforced, either by inspiration or other- 
wise, indefinitely, but the same religion, the same terms of 
salvation remain. 

Dr. Doddridge paraphrases Luke xxiv. 27, as follows : 
"And hereupon, beginning from the writings of Moses, and 
supporting his discourse with the authority of all the proph- 
ets, he interpreted to them in a much clearer light than they 
had ever seen them in before, the principal things which 
had been either typified, or were foretold concerning him in 
all the Scriptures." 

This must be the proper understanding of the text. The 
tw^o disciples were disappointed, dispirited, confounded ; but 
14 



418 WHAT RELIGION DID MOSES 

by simply explaining to them the Scriptures — adding 
nothing thereto — he set their faith right, while their hearts 
burned within them. 

St. Paul tells us plainly that he taught no religion other 
than that which he read in the Old Testament. Hear him 
in Acts xxvi. 22 : '• Having therefore obtained help from 
God, I continue unto this day, witnessing unto small and 
great, saying none other things than those ivhich the prophets 
and Moses did say should comeJ' 

And in Acts xxiv. 14, h# tells us the same thing: "But 
this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call 
heresy, so w^orship I the God of my fathers, believing all 
things which are written in the law and in the prophets." 
And in Acts xxviii. 23 : " To whom he expounded and tes- 
tified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning 
Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the proph- 
ets, from morning till evening." 

He found all his Christianity in the Old Testament. He 
proved every thing by Moses and the prophets. He taught 
nothing that he did not read there, persuading them con- 
cerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses and out of the 
prophets, from morning till evening, and teaching none 
other things. 

This is very explicit. He found his religion wholly in 
the Old Testament. His business was to preach and teach 
it, and it alone. He explained it, enforced it, illustrated it, 
elaborated it, and none other things. He knew no gospel 
other than that which he found in the law of Moses, and in 
the prophets. The religion of Moses was exactly the relig- 
ion of the gospel, according to the understanding of St. 
Paul. 

The religion of Moses is also very clearly set forth in 
Heb. xi. The faith here attributed to Moses was undoubt- 
edly the simple Christian faith, for it expressly says that in 



HIMSELF PROFESS Al^D TEACH? 419 

all those matters of faith, he esteemed the reproach of Christ, 
not the mere external acts of sacrificial worship, greater 
riches than the treasures in Egypt. His faith in Christ, 
and willingness to bear the Christian reproach, gave him 
that respect for the recompense of reward which caused him 
to refuse the temporal blessings ofiered him. The faith of 
Moses had nothing to do with " promises of secular good," 
except to reject them, and take the eternal riches of Christ 
instead. 

If this is not Christianity, I know not what Christianity 
is. St. Paul has given no better evidence of his Christian- 
ity than Moses did of his. 



420 THE RELATION OF THE LAW, 



CHAPTER LXV. 

CONCERNING THE RELATION OF THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, 

AND CHRIST. 

Revealed religion may be looked at under the three- 
fold aspect of the law, the prophets, and Christ Revelation 
was made at different times, stretching along through near 
two thousand years. They were different revelations merely 
in the sense that they were made at different times, and by 
a different instrumentality. Properly, it is all one revela- 
tion. It comprises and completes one whole system of re- 
ligion. It has one author, one character, and one end. 

The law, properly considered — whether you confine it to 
the five books of Moses, or whatever other books you con- 
sider as comprising it, or whether you confine it more rig- 
idly still to the Ten Commandments — ^requires perfect obe- 
dience. It says. Do those things, and you shall live by 
them. 

But it is the mistake of many to suppose that this rigid 
law, or "legal dispensation" — as Dr. Dwight calls it — pre- 
ceded the rule, in the order of time, of saving men by he- 
liemng in Christ. It is an error to suppose that this was 
the rule in some particular age of the world, and that a 
less rigid rule was the rule in some other age of the world. 
The law precedes the prophets and the gospel, not by any 
means in the order of time, but in the order of sequence. 



THE PROPHETS, AND CHRIST. 421 

The rule by which men are saved has not been changed; 
it is the same now that it was in the days of Abraham, and 
of Abel. The law is the same now that it always was ; it 
required perfect obedience at first, and requires the same now. 

But it turns out in the actual history of man — whether 
you consider perfect obedience impossible or merely imprac- 
ticable — that it has not happened that any man has actually 
rendered this obedience. So there has been no salvation in 
this way, nor need any be looked for. And because of the 
impracticability of salvation in this way, God provided 
other means which we call gospel. But this gospel — which 
provides salvation by faith — was not set up as the rule, at a 
subsequent chronological period, but at once. It was un- 
doubtedly offered to Abel just as it was to Paul and the 
men of their respective times, and was accepted by them 
both in the very same way. Abraham believed God, and it 
was counted to him for righteousness ; and so did Enoch, 
and John, and every other saved man. 

The Eev. Dr. Milton Brown, editor of the Watchman and 
Evangelist, in his sermon in Sermons from the College, states 
this relation very briefly and very correctly in one of the 
divisions of his sermon : 

"As the law was designed to secure the highest happiness 
without sin, so the gospel is fitted to accomplish this design 
after the introduction of sin." 

That states it precisely; and it is refreshing, amidst so 
much error as commonly surrounds us at this point, to see 
so important a truth so lucidly stated. "What is called the 
law, is the primary constitution regarding man as he was 
created ; but when sin came into the world, his happiness 
under this constitution became impracticable; and so the 
gospel was introduced. But surely it was not introduced 
eighteen hundred years ago, but when sin rendered it neces- 
sary. 



422 THE RELATION OF THE LAW, 

The law^ the prophets, and the gospel, relate to each other 
in the order of sequence merely, not in the order of chrono- 
logical events. So far as periods of time are concerned, 
they present themselves, in the divine system of salvation 
now, precisely as they did eighteen hundred or three thou- 
sand years ago. 

The prophets, in the order of time, occupied a midway 
position between the giving of the law and Christ. They 
were merely inspired teachers of religion — L 6., of the gospel. 
They looked forward through the vista of coming years to 
see the human personality of Christ ; whereas, we look back 
through the records of history: they taught religion to 
mankind just as Matthew and John did ; not merely to 
their cotemporaries, but to us. They taught one system of 
religion, and not two. The law and the gospel were both 
before them, forming this one whole system. They saw 
them separate in a system of sequence, order, and continu- 
ance, but not as applying to different periods of the world. 
This system, thus taught — verbatim — is authoritatively 
presented to us now for our acceptance ; and we reject it — 
as did those in their day — at our peril. If we hear not 
Moses and the prophets, and are not saved in pursuance of 
the things they taught, neither would we be persuaded to 
turn from our sins by any possible means. 

Surely the Old Testament prophets were Christian proph- 
ets, were they not ? Did they prophesy, or teach — call it 
which you will — any thing else but Christianity ? Do we 
not go to them now in half our sermons to learn Christian- 
ity ? Surely they were Christian prophets. 

" Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be jus- 
tified in his sight." Kom. iii. 20. In view of this declara- 
tion, I inquire, What is natural religion ? And I answer, 
that by natural religion we are to understand a system of 
mere law — divine law — to be obeyed. Is this the religion 



THE PROPHETS, AND CHRIST. 42 



o 



of Scripture, or any part of Scripture? If so, then it is a 
religion of inevitable condemnation. And yet it is written, 
"Do these things, and thou shalt live by them/' "Cursed 
is every one that continueth not in all things written in the 
book of the law to do them." " The soul that sinneth it 
shall die." " For not the hearers of the law are just before 
God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." 

These admonitions are administered to us not, surely, to 
tantalize us ; not to require of us that which is impractica- 
ble; but to show us plainly, that inasmuch as we cannot 
comply with the natural requirements which rest upon us in 
virtue of our creatureship, the only possible safety for us is 
to betake ourselves to the gospel, and avail ourselves of its 
provisions; these gospel provisions having been made at 
once, and not, as some seem strangely to suppose, postponed 
for four thousand years or more. 

So that it is not true that the system of law was formerly 
the rule, and that we are under a milder dispensation now. 
That is the law now as much as it ever was, and in the same 
sense it ever was since sin appeared in the world. But 
while it is the law, and perfect obedience is thus inexorably 
demanded, and for the reasons that man cannot in his 
crippled condition meet these demands ; for this reason the 
gospel comes in with the strict compliance on the principles 
of vicarious mediation and voluntary atonement : a days- 
man betwixt us appeared to relieve the difficulty. 

Now, when did this daysman appear to make reconcili- 
ation ? Was it in the four-thousandth year of the world ? 
Most assuredly not. It was in the first year of man's de- 
generacy ; or at least, it was before any suffered the extreme 
penalty of the law. 

,^ Right here is the mistake of many who suppose that the 
dispensation of the law was separated from that of the 
gospel by a period of years. This is not true. The relief 



424 THE RELATION OF THE LAW, 

came immediately — all the relief that ever came, or ever 
will come. The merciful administration of Christ did not 
begin at the time of the apostles. 

The law— peremptory, inexorable, making no terms with 
transgression — be it said with reverence — is the only kind 
of law the Almighty could make. Any thing short of that 
would not be law, and would be inconsistent with divine 
sovereignty. All law — human or divine — is of this char- 
acter. Laws forbid what they forbid, and require what 
they reqire ; but it does not always follow, necessarily, that 
laws for the government of rational beings are certainly 
executed in their extremity upon transgression. A sense of 
some sort of reservation, under some possible circumstances, 
is an instinct of nature at least, if indeed it be not consti- 
tutional with the Almighty. 

Then why has not every human being suffered ? Simply 
because of the provisions of the gospel — of Christianity. 
But it would be very unwise to suppose these promises to be 
hemmed in and circumscribed by chronological periods. 
The system is based upon the consideration set forth in 
Eom. viii. 3, 4 : " For what the law could not do, in that it 
was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in 
the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in 
the flesh ; that the righteousness of the law might be ful- 
filled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." 

The law is not a system of salvation by revealed religion 
at all. It is the mere natural religion of obedience to a 
Creator. The gospel is the only system of salvation there 
is, or is conceivable. Now, did God leave the world four or 
five thousand years without a possible salvation ? Then how 
can the beginning of the gospel dispensation be dated at 
the time of Christ's appearance more than at any other 
time? 

The gospel is in perfect harmony with what is called the 



^ THE PROPHETS, AND CHRIST. 425 

law, and grows out of it. The prophets did not teach what 
religion would he in the future, but what it was then. They 
fully recognized the existence of Christ, and of his atoning 
work ; they spoke in the future of his visible manifestation 
only. " To him gave all the prophets witness, that through 
his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission 
of sins." Can any thing be plainer than that ? 

I do not know what Dr. Olshausen means by calling the 
prophets "^re-Christians." If he means simply that they 
lived in an age of the world anterior to that commonly 
called Christian, then the quaint expression might perhaps 
be received as a remark of little or no force of meaning ; 
but if he means to apply it to their religion in an order of 
time with Christianity, then I object to it as an untrue de- 
scription thereof. They were Christians fully, or they were 
not ; and if they were not, then I feel little or no interest 
about their religion. They were the teachers of revealed 
religion ; and beyond the principles which they taught the 
apostles did not teach — ^no, not a whit. "Pre-Christians," in- 
deed ! No, sir ; they were Christians exactly in the sense 
that the apostles were Christians. They stood exactly upon 
the same ground, and taught precisely the same things. 
Nay, living as they did, before the apostles, in the order of 
time they were the great teachers of the apostles; and the 
apostles readily acknowledged themselves the pupils of the 
prophets, and sat at their feet and learned from their lips, 
and taught " none other things,^^ though in their teachings 
they greatly amplified, explained, and elaborated those 
teachings. 



426 MATTHEW V. 17, 



CHAPTER LXVI. 

MATTHEW V* 17. 

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the 
prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." 

Mr. Burkitt says, "The Saviour is here understood to 
speak of the Moral Law, in contradistinction to the Cere- 
monial Law, which he does not mean." But he gives us 
neither authority nor reason for such a reading. The 
Saviour's language is, the law and the prophets. By this 
expression is generally, if not always meant, the entire 
religious system as written in the Old Testament. 

But let us look at the expression a moment, as Mr. 
Burkitt and others look at it, for there are many who read 
it in the same way, and let us see how ridiculous it will ap- 
pear. A part of the law, we are told, prescribes religious 
ceremonies, and a part prescribes moral and religious con- 
duct ; and the Saviour meant the latter and not the former. 
That is, he meant that he did not come for the purpose of 
destroying — to utterly put an end to — ^to extirpate the law 
of morals and religion. 

Let us look a^moment at the occasion. He was delivering 
a most noted and memorable discourse on — what subject ? 
On morals and religion. As a high masterpiece, the brief 
synopsis we have stands far, far away unrivaled by any 
thing of the sort in human language, inspired or uninspired. 



MATTHEW V. 17. 427 

It enters into every practical detail of life ; it lays open 
every chamber of the soul and conscience ; it clusters every 
species of conduct, whether the acts of the hands or the 
breathings of the soul, and embodies every social, moral, 
and religious duty. As a summing up of man's whole 
duty, the production itself is wonderful, and reaches such 
heights of sublimity as the world has never looked upon 
before nor since. While its morals are the purest and 
simplest conceivable, it meets every case of human action, 
and every impulse of human feeling. It is a catalogue of 
the highest teachings of inspiration mingled with the au- 
thoritative utterances of Almighty God. 

And now we are told that, in the midst oi such a dis- 
course, on such a subject, one of its distinct declarations was, 
that he did not come into the world for the purpose of 
utterly destroying all rules of human morals! He did not 
intend absolutely to abrogate all distinction between right 
and wrong ! 

Could any thing be said, in such circumstances, or indeed 
at any time, more ridiculous ? At the very time, and in the 
midst of the highest strain of teaching, what moral obliga- 
tion was, how it operated and applied to every-day life and 
to all men, a declaration that he did not intend to annihilate 
human obligation in toto, would, to say the least, have failed 
to command the respect of the most stupid Pharisees around 
him. Verily, it is but a step from the sublime to the ridic- 
ulous. Such an announcement, in such circumstances, 
would have been disgraceful to the young, proud Saul of 
Tarsus. 

And in the next place, there are no such two separate and 
distinct laws, or codes, as is supposed. It has been formerly 
explained that there were then in the same sense there are 
now, Church laws pertaining to religious ceremonies, and 
others pertaining to religious faith and morals. It will not 



428 MATTHEW V. 17. 

be pretended by any that all laws respe^cting religious cere- 
monies were abolished. This would be notoriously untrue. 
Indeed, it could not be without aboEshing all religion. 
Then the repeal must have applied to some particular cere- 
monies, and not to ceremonies in general. And I inquire, 
what were the particular ones ? And where is the specifi- 
cation ? There is none. 

The simple, well-known truth is, that Church ceremonies 
have never been precisely the same, in all parts of the 
Church, at any one time; and in different ages of the 
world they have varied considerably. At the period of 
Christ, there was no radical change in tliis regard. Some 
few of the Church ceremonies necessarily changed in form, 
though they did by no means cease at the coming of Christ. 
They necessarily changed in form, for the reason that previ- 
ously they pointed forward to the future coming of Christ : 
of course this could not be done after he did come ; and so, 
while the thing continued, the form was changed. And be- 
sides this, there were other ceremonies which underwent 
gradual changes : this has been fully explained in previous 
chapters. 

The Saviour says he came to fulfill both the law and the 
prophets. That is to say, he came to make no radical 
changes in or about religion, but to teach, to explain, to 
enforce the existing religion. And this he did, as everybody 
knows ; and beyond this he did not do either this or that, 
with the things written in the Scriptures. 

In his elucidation of the word fulfill, Dr. Clarke gives a 
clear insight to this whole expression. Others concur with 
him. " This word not only signifies to fulfill, but also to 
teaeh ; and consequently we may infer that our Lord in- 
structed that the Law and the Prophets were still to be 
taught or inculcated by him and his disciples. And this he 
and they have done in the most pointed manner. See the 



MATTHEW V. 17. 429 

Gospels and Epistles ; and see especially the Sermon on the 
Mount, the Epistle of James, and the Epistle to the He- 
brews. Asid this meaning of the word gives a clear sense to 
the apostle's words, in Col. i. 25 — ' Whereof I am made a 
Tnwjkter — -to fulfill the word of Godf that is, to teach the 
doctrine of God." 

This is a most natural and simple view. Now, the 
Saviour's language means something worthy of him: I 
<jame Bot to destroy, to scatter, to disannul, to ignore these 
pure and heavenly teachings. I came to set up no new re- 
li^on, -as many of your teachers are trying to make appear, 
l)ut f(sr the very opposite purpose of teaching, of enforcing, 
;and making plain these very teachings. 

Sug3h a mission is worthy of such a personage. To set the 
law and the prophets in a true light before the world, to 
^ive them force, explication, true meaning, was a work 
worfehy a divine hand. 

And so St. Paul says, in Kom. iii. 31, "Do we make void 
the law through faith ? God forbid. Yea, we establish the 
law." That is the doctrine. We establish the law; we 
t^ch what is taught in the law of religion in the Scriptures, 
and no more. We take up no new doctrines, as we are ac- 
<5used by many who do not understand us. We add nothing, 
we abate nothing ; for Christ is the end of the law for right- 
eousness to every one that believeth. 

Some have understood the Saviour to mean that he came 
to fulfill the predictions in regard to him. Then they were 
not prophetic predictions. It is true that his coming 
and work did fulfill those predictions ; but if he, in doing 
this or that, had an eye to such fulfillment, then the sup- 
posed predictions were no predictions at all, but were mere 
collusions betw^een ^he parties. By making special efforts to 
do so, any one might have met many of the predictions. If 
these predictions were prophecies, then they were so written 



430 MATTHEW V. 17. 

because Christ's conduct was what it was ; but if his conduct 
was what it was because of the predictions, then the proph- 
ecies were no prophecies at all. 

In his life he certainly did fulfill, carry out, observe, com- 
plete, execute, bring about, all the things taught, whether by 
prediction or otherwise, in the Old Testament. And not 
only did he do this himself, but so he taught his apostles 
and followers. And so we find them, firmly and rigidly 
everywhere, laboring to maintain, to establish, to fulfill the 
Law and the Prophets. 



/ 



THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 4ol 



CHAPTER LXVII. 

SOME REMARKS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATLiNS. 

A LITTLE careful thouglit will show us how the misun- 
derstandings and dissensions arose in the Church about the 
time of the writing of this Epistle, and which are supposed 
to have given rise to it, or at least to have occasioned, those 
portions of it which refer to different views existing between 
Jewish and Gentile Christians. 

The means as well as the modes of thinking among think- 
ing men were somewhat different then from what they are 
now. Now men's minds are trained to thinking almost 
entirely by reading and study ; then there was neither read- 
ing nor study, except with the rarest few. A few men do 
more reading now than the whole Roman Empire did then. 

How, then, was systematic thought produced in those 
ages? How were opinions formed? And on what were 
they based ? 

The teaching — ^what little there was — was oral, didactic, 
positive. There were no books. Eeligious literature con- 
sisted in the books of the Old Testament almost entirely. 
Beyond these, however, there were probably in existence a 
few rolls of writing called Targums, which were a sort of 
paraphrase of the sacred text, intended for the benefit of 
Jewish scholars, as men who could read were called, and 
who in the Babylonish captivity had lost the use of the 



432 SOME REMARKS ON THE 

Hebrew language. And possibly there were some other 
written rolls of a religious character. Some portions of 
those queer, antique, anonymous writings, which are singu- 
larly enough called Apocryplia, are supposed to have existed 
at that time ; but not one man in perhaps ten thousand ever 
saw one of them. The Scriptures were read only by minis- 
ters in Sabbath-day lessons, and in this way the people got 
some knowledge of them. 

It is easy to see, then, that a very few minds moulded and 
controlled the masses. The Scriptures were subject to wide 
and uncertain construction. And again, illiterate and un- 
thinking persons are much more under subjection to the 
laws of habit than those who reason more and decide more 
independently. 

And so by comparing these things with those which sur- 
round us at present, we may in some degree be prepared to 
see how the Jews would be likely to become strongly 
wedded to their religious practices of external worship. 
Since the Saviour has been actually amongst us, and we 
have seen his life and death in fact and in history ; and since 
we have had hundreds of years of leisure and favorable op- 
portunity to reason with each other, to instruct each other, to 
treasure up the best thinking of the wisest men for ages, 
and cull and prune our thoughts ; and since with all other 
advantages we have the light of inspiration to explain the 
many things thus taught, it is not difficult for us to distin- 
guish as well as we do — and perhaps that is very bung- 
lingly — in regard to types and antetypes, and to discern in 
the life, character, death, and resurrection of Christ, the 
things of which the prophets wrote. We can now see how 
some of the external modes of worship then practiced 
should "be made to teach, in an irregidar, symbolizing kind 
of way, important truths in religion which could, under such 
circumstances, be taught in no plainer way. The most dis- 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 433 

cerning of the men Yfho lived then could have but a very 
faint idea of the pre-representing character of those sym- 
bolic teachings. If they could have had, then there would 
be no necessity for them. 

By looking into these things carefully, we shall likely come 
to the conclusion that it is not at all to be wondered at that 
many of the earliest followers of Christ should still cling 
with tenacity to the foreshadow^ing forms of worship they 
had been accustomed to from boyhood. The true t}^ical 
and symbolizing character of these forms could not be ex- 
pected to be seen and laid aside in a day by every one. 

But here is an important point that must not be lost sight 
of, for it is a vital consideration : The Scriptures always con- 
templated that these foreshadowing rites must cease on the 
coming of Christ, This is everywhere taught ; and though 
it may not have been well understood then, it is neverthe- 
less well understood now, or ought to be. And if any one 
desires to be cited to these teachings, I point him again to 
each and every instance of such teaching. If the thing 
prescribed pointed forward to the coming of Christ, then in 
its very nature it prescribed that that form, at least, must 
cease on the happening of that event. Any other supposi- 
tion would make it absurd. 

You may call these mistaken Christians by what name 
you choose ; you may call them Judaizing Christians. The 
name is not otherwise objectionable than that it is a misno- 
mer. His error was not Judaistic nor Hebrew, but the very 
reverse. His error consisted, not in following, but in de- 
parting from, the true meaning of the Scriptures. The 
objection to him was not that he did, but that he did noty 
adhere to the real teachings of the Scriptures. 

.And this is the character of the reasonings and expostu- 
lations of St. Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians. He 
complained of these nersons, not because they did, but be- 



i34 SOME REMARKS ON THE 

cause tliey did not, hold fast to the true Hebrew teachings. 
Did St. Paul complain of any one for adhering to the Scrip- 
tures ? Rather was it not for misunderstanding and depart- 
ing from them ? Or, if it was wrong to adhere strictly to 
and follow the Old Testament then, how has it become right 
to do so now ? 

Olshausen — Vol. III., p. 289 — says : " In the law of Moses 
circumcision was instituted for all times, with the threaten- 
ing that the uncircumcised should be cut off from the peo- 
ple of God. No prophet had expressly predicted that cir- 
cumcision was to cease." 

This is a most remarkable statement. " No prophet had 
expressly predicted that circumcision was to cease." Yes, 
he had. Every prophet, and every other writer in the 
Old Testament — supposing these writings to harmonize — 
had fixed the limitation of circumcision to the ante-Messi- 
anic period ; and if there is to be any controversy on this 
point, it shall not be between Dr. Olshausen and myself, 
but between him and St. Paul. The apostle so interprets 
the Old Testament at several difierent times. I hold it a 
settled matter in biblical hermeneutics that circumcision was, 
from the first and always, specifically confined to the period 
before Christ's coming. There might, perhaps, be difier- 
ence of opinion between men as to why, or on what princi- 
ples, this was so — whether because of its bloody, painful, 
typical, or symbolic character ; but that it was always so, 
and was always so understood by St. Paul, and by all who 
understood the Scriptures rightly, is a truth which we learn 
unmistakably from the New Testament, whether either the 
Doctor or myself might or might not have sufficient skill to 
draw it from the Old. I refer the reader to my former 
argument on this point in Chapter XX. 

And it is the more surprising because the same author a 
few pages afterward — p. 295 — says: "The laws of food, 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 435 

accordingly, from their nature, retained their importance 
only until by the redemption of Christ, that which occa- 
sioned them was overcome. We cannot, therefore, say that 
they are here abolished as something opposed to Christianity, 
but they only appear like all else, fulfilled by the work of 
redemption." 

That is exactly right, and certainly applies equally to all 
things which naturally pertain to the an^^e-Messianic period 
of the Church. 

A reply to the suggestion that " no prophet had expressly 
predicted that circumcision was to cease/' might be found 
in the consideration that some things are true — especially 
natural sequences — which no prophet had expressly pre- 
dicted. But the truth is, that every prophet did expressly pre- 
dict that circumcision, as a religious rite, could not by pos- 
sibility extend beyond the sacrifice of Christ. The very 
writing of the word circumcision, with its foreshadowing 
meaning, is the most express and positive manner in which 
the thing could be limited to the period anterior to that 
event. To understand the idea intended to be conveyed in 
the very verbiage itself, is to understand its strict limitation. 
An astronomer pre-represents an eclipse ; but does he con- 
tinue to ^re-represent it when he talks about it after- 
ward? 

There is no doubt that these Galatians were guilty of the 
error of attaching far too much importance to, and of 
wholly misunderstanding, these obsolete, out-of-date ceremo- 
nies. But it is the mistake of those who so teach, to sup- 
pose, not only that these ceremonies were ever intended to 
be used after the death of Christ, but that this external 
compliance with the ceremonies ever was correctly taught as 
a condition of salvation. This never ivas the Jewish religion. 
The very reverse is everywhere taught. Eeligious ceremo- 
nies held the same position in the Church and in religion 



436 SOME REMARKS ON THE 

then as they do now. Then, as now, obedience to God and 
faith in Christ were the conditions of salvation, and the 
ceremonies were the mere instruments of manifesting this 
obedience and faith. 

Nor were these teachings and expostulations — so appro- 
priately and so forcibly administered to the Galatians by 
St. Paul — any new thing in the Church ; the same thing is 
seen all through the Old Testament teachings. Who will 
say that this doctrine of backsliding and trusting in mere 
forms was not exposed by Ezekiel and others, six hundred 
years before Paul preached ? 

If the Old Testament teaches a religion of mere formal 
action, and, as Dr. Clarke says, is only temporal, then it is 
no Bible to me. Revealed religion is, at least, consistent. 
Any religion different from the New Testament cannot be 
true. 

The doctrine in Galatians iii. was always the doctrine. 
There never was any other religion. Written or unwritten, 
it must be the religion, and the only religion, of man. Let 
that rule cease to have universal applicability among man- 
kind, either before or after the period of Christ, and I know 
of no necessity for a Saviour. 

These " foolish Galatians " listened to the seductive croak- 
ings of backslidden, discontented professors ; but it is add- 
ing error to error to suppose that their errors leaned toward 
the Old Testament — they lead directly from the Old Testa- 
ment. 

We now exhort Christians everywhere to beware of the 
very dangers which Paul pointed out. We tell them, as 
did the Psalmist, and Ezekiel, and others, that if they slide 
from the firm foundation of faith in Christ as our atoning 
sacrifice, that then they necessarily place themselves in a 
position where they must do the whole law. There are no 
other conceivable modes of salvation than perfect obedience 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 437 

on one hand, and faith in Christ on tlie other. The former 
is at least impracticable, and hence a Saviour was pro- 
vided. 

But I presume no man will pretend to say that these 
doctrines were first taught in the days of St. Paul. 



438 timothy's religion was 



CHAPTER LXVIII 



timothy's religion was that of the old testament. 



Timothy was a young minister of great piety, zeal, and 
prudence, and one of the most useful men of his time, and 
was for several years the close friend and companion of 
Paul. In Acts xvi. 1-3, we have an account of PauFs first 
acquaintance with him ; and from 1 Tim. iv. 14, we learn 
that he soon after became a minister. Notmthstanding the 
remark in 1 Tim. iv. 12, it is next to certain that he did not 
enter the ministry before the age of thirty. He was born 
then in the lifetime of the Saviour, and probably ten years 
or more before his public ministry. 

Doddridge says: "It is not certain when he was con- 
verted to the Christian faith." He is mistaken. Such an 
event did not happen, in the sense meant by the Doctor, in 
the lifetime of Timothy. There is no such thing within 
the range of Christian theology ; and if there is to be a 
question on this point, it shall not be with me, but between 
the Doctor and St. Paul. 

Doddridge then goes on to say : " HoAvever this be, when 
St. Paul came into those parts again he had the satisfaction 
to find, not only that Timothy continued steadfast in the 
profession of Christianity, but was in great esteem with the 
Churches at Lystra and Iconium for his distinguished piety 
and zeal." 



THAT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 439 

That is all very true, and sufficiently well said ; but the 
steadfastness so warmly commended by the apostle had refer- 
ence, we are told, not to the new "Christianity" to which 
Doddridge supposed Timothy needed to be " converted," but 
to the religion of his mother Eunice, and his grandmother 
Lois, and which they had taught him out of tJie Old Testa- 
raent 

Let the apostle himself make this matter understood : — 
"When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is 
in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy 
mother Eunice, and I am persuaded that in thee also." — 2 
Tim. i. 5. "And that from a child thou hast known the 
Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto sal- 
vation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture 
is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doc- 
trine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- 
ness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly fur- 
nished unto all good works." 

So it seems the religious faith professed by Timothy, and 
so broadly endorsed by the apostle, was derived wholly from 
lessons taught him out of the Old Testament, Now I ask 
Dr. Doddridge, did Timothy need to be "converted" from 
that faith, the " faith which is in Christ Jesus," to some other 
faith which he calls " Christianity " ? There is no such Chris- 
tianity known to the theology of Scripture. The " faith " 
which was in Timothy, and so distinctly commended by 
Paul, existed in him before Christ began to preach ; it was 
the same which Paul himself professed. The Old Testa- 
ment was fully able to make one wise unto salvation through 
faith which is in Christ Jesus, 

The idea of Doddridge, and alas ! many others, that a 
pious man, " wise unto salvation through faith which is in 
Christ Jesus," needed to be "converted to Christianity," be- 
cause he imbibed that faith before the death, or before the 



440 timothy's religion was 

preaching of Christ, is an idea utterly unknown to the the- 
ology of Scripture. 

If Timothy possessed the sound religious faith "which is 
in Christ Jesus/' and which is so warmly commended by 
Paul, the same being derived from, no matter what source, 
or imbibed through, no matter what teachings, then I ask 
Dr. Doddridge, To ivhat did Timothy need conversion ? And 
when he says, " it is not certain w^hen he was converted to 
the Christian faith," I reply that it is a mistake, for that 
very thing is certain. Paul says he w^as converted to, or 
at least possessed, the faith luhich is in Christ Jesus, w^hen he 
was yet "a child,'' under the pious teachings of his mother 
and grandmother, and at least ten or fifteen years before the 
ministry and death of Christ. 

It has been suggested by some, that Timothy must have 
been converted by the ministry of Paul, for he calls him 
" my own son in the faith." This is easily reconciled by 
the very natural supposition that when Paul first found 
him, though eminently and zealously pious, and believing 
in Jesus as the Christ, yet he was but a novice in religion. 
Paul brought him out, and instructed him, and made a man 
of him, and through his ministry and teachings he became 
one of the greatest and most useful men of the Church in 
his day. He might well call him his son in the faith, though 
he expressly explains that Timothy w^as converted to the 
faith of Christ long before Christ's ministry began, and 
several years before the preaching of John the Baptist, and 
so long before Paul ever saw him. 

Dr. Clarke, on 2 Tim. iii. 15, says: "The apostle is here 
evidently speaking of the Jewish Scriptures ; and he tells 
us they are able to make us wise unto salvation, provided we 
have faith in Jesus Christ. This is the simple use of the 
Old Testament No soul of man can be made wise unto 
salvation by it, but as he refers all to Christ Jesus." 



THAT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 441 

Most assuredly; and the same may be said of the New 
Testament. But the New Testament not being in existence 
then, or at least large portions of it, Timothy received his 
early religious instruction entirely from the Old. 

After instructing Timothy (1 Tim. i. 3,) to "teach no other 
doctrine" — meaning no other than the Old Testament, as 
he elsewhere tells us (Acts xxvi. 22, xxviii. 23) was his 
own custom — he goes on to say, in the fifth verse, " Now the 
end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and 
of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned ; from which 
some having swerved, have turned aside unto vain jangling." 

By "the end of the commandment" is undoubtedly meant 
the aim, scope, design, or teaching of the Old Testament. 
Its design and end are as high as religious teaching can 
aim ; and those who hold fast to it, and thus maintain their 
Judaism inviolate, receive high commendation at his hands ; 
while those who " having swerved and turned aside" there- 
from, have run into vain jangling, etc. 

And here I do not scruple to say, that Dr. Clarke is 
clearly and evidently mistaken when he says, " The apostle 
appears to allude to the Judaizing teachers, who pretended 
faith in the gospel, merely that they might have the greater 
opportunity to bring back to the Mosaic system those who 
had embraced the doctrine of Christ crucified." 

As if the ^'Mosaic system^' of religion, and the religion of 
" Christ crucified,'' were two difierent and antagonistic things ! 
Whereas Paul and every other divine teacher tell us plainly, 
and the truth imdoubtedly is, that it was, then as now, only 
by holding firm to the Mosaic system, rightly understood, 
that any man could embrace the doctrine of Christ crucified. 
Can any man be a Christian and repudiate the Old Testa- 
ment teachings of religion? I declare it to be not only erro- 
neous, but a most preposterous blunder in theology, which 
no man can receive openly and knowingly, that to embrace 



442 timothy's religion. 

the New Testament you must repudiate the Old. Not a 
whit short of this is the error before us. I know of no 
overstrained hypercriticism that could relieve the difficulty. 
The Mosaic system, the Doctor says, is the theory of religion 
written in the Old Testament; and the doctrine ^of Christ 
crucified is written in the New. If the learned Doctor does 
not mean that, then I can attach no meaning to his words. 
And if these two things are different and antagonistic, then 
I ask which one is the true Christian Bible? St. Paul tells 
us that he adopted the former, as did also his son Timothy. 

" The Mosaic system " is undoubtedly right ; though the 
erroneous views of every bungling pretender in theology, 
such as those instructed and controverted by the apostle, 
may not be. The system is one thing ; mistaken views of 
it, by Jews or anybody else, in PauFs time or any other, 
constitute quite another and different thing. St. Paul firmly 
maintains the former, and firmly rebukes and sets right 
such of the latter as chanced to come to his notice. 

As I have previously explained, perhaps at length quite 
sufficient, that these '^Judaizing teachers," as these mistaken 
Jewish Christians are most singularly called, were not try- 
ing to bring men back to the Mosaic system — the Old Tes- 
tament — but were trying to do the very opposite, to bring 
men back from those Old Testament teachings to their 
erroneous notions of those teachings, into which they had 
strayed. 

St. Paul was the great leader of Judaizing teachers. See 
how he enforced these principles upon Timothy. See how 
he commended them in him ; and see how every Christian 
minister does the same thing now. 

Does any Christian minister now repudiate or fail to teach 
any and every part of the Old Testament — the Mosaic sys- 
tem? If so, which part does he ignore? 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBKEWS. 443 



CHAPTER LXIX. 

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 

The Epistle to the Hebrews has furnished material for a 
large amount of criticism. Among the questions discussed 
are these : To whom was the Epistle written ? What occa- 
sioned it ? Who was its author ? And, Is it really an 
epistle, or a treatise ? I do not intend to enter into any of 
these debates, but will dispatch a remark or two in few 
words. 

"Tb whom ivas it vn-ittenf^^ What practical question is 
intended by this inquiry about which so much has been 
written ? It was undoubtedly intended for publication, and 
it was plainly addressed to the Hebrews. But publications 
were not made then as they are now. There was then no 
printing; there was no multiplication of copies from the 
original, except with the pen ; and that was a very slow 
process, and vastly expensive, as compared with the present 
mode of doing the same thing. The first manuscript copy 
was addressed " To the Hebrews ;" and there is certainly 
nothing either in the superscription or in the body of the 
letter which gives the slightest indication that its circulation 
was intended to be restricted to any particular class, to those 
of any religious opinions, or those residing in any partic- 
ular locality. The way such things were published in those 
days, was to have carefully-prepared copies read publicly 



444 SOME OBSERVATIONS ON 

to assemblies, congregations, etc. The more interest the 
people felt in it, the more copies would be prepared, and 
the more it would be publicly read. But it was intended for 
the eye of all the w^orld, because it w^as to be published. 

As to the occasion of the writing of this paper, there would 
seem to be no room for doubt among those disposed to look 
plainly and naturally upon a plain subject. The letter was 
written about A. D. 61 or 62, when Paul was away in Italy, 
and most probably in Eome. The whole Jewish people 
w^ere then — and had been for years — greatly excited on the 
great and all-important question of the Messiahship of 
Jesus. Multiplied thousands took strong ground on either 
side; w^hile other multiplied thousands w^ere less zealous, 
but more or less inclined to this side and to that. That is 
the manifest occasion of this writing. How loudly did this 
state of things call for such an address from such a man as 
Paul ! And how well calculated was it to strengthen the 
faithful, to confirm the faith of the feeble, to convince the 
j)artially convinced, and to arrest such gainsayers as were 
still within the reach of reason ! 

As to the question whether the paper is an epistle or a 
treatise, I regard that not more important, and far less logi- 
cal, than the question — with what kiiid of ink it was written. 
It is an epistle, or a letter ; and so is it a treatise, or a lecture, 
or an address, or circular ; or it might perhaps be called a 
hooh, or pamphlet, though it was not folded into pages, but 
was written upon skins and rolled up into portable form. It 
was a writing made by the great Hebrew scholar and logi- 
cian, for the benefit of his people. 

And in other respects the Epistle to the Hebrews has 
given rise to much disputation. It is considered mysterious 
and difficult to understand; and this has caused many 
scholars to doubt its canonical character ; and many have 
concluded that St. Paul could not have been its author. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 446 

But if we look at the argument from the proper point 
of observation, it seems to me that these difficulties will 
vanish. 

Let us suppose the following propositions — and I presume 
they will be readily conceded by all Christians : 

Suppose that Paul, at or about the time of his conver- 
sion, had come to see clearly that in opposing Christianity 
he had greatly mistaken the truth and the proper meaning 
of his own religion; that in opposing the teachings of 
Christ he was opposing his oym religious faith, and was 
doing violence to his own acknowledged Scriptures; that 
they meant, on the coming of the Messiah, precisely what 
Christianity then was ; that the tenets of the apostles were 
precisely what his own religion must be now, supposing 
Jesus to be the Christ, of which simple fact he was now 
convinced. 

And suppose, too, that he knew himself to be a man of 
national name and fame among his countrymen, and felt 
great solicitude for their religious welfare, and was grieved 
to see so many refusing their own Messiah, in whom they 
had all believed so long, and to whose appearance among 
them they had looked forward with so much solicitude ; and 
that he was also much grieved to see so many who professed 
Christianity, to misunderstand it so far as not to see that 
some of the ceremonies proper, and greatly useful in the 
Church before the coming of the Messiah, would be absurd 
and meaningless afterward. 

And suppose, too, that in the providence of God his own 
labors had been employed in foreign countries almost en- 
tirely, and for many years, therefore, he had mingled very 
little with his own countrymen. 

' And suppose, also, that the opposers of Christ and his 
followers founded their opposition wholly upon the belief 
that Jesus was not the Christ ; and th^t therefore they re- 



446 SOME OBSERVATIONS ON 

garded their teachings as a new, and hence a false religion ; 
that Messiah had not come; and so to worship Jesus as 
Messiah, was idolatry; and therefore, that the reason for 
rejecting Jesus by so many Jews was, that they falsely and 
ignorantly believed that the disciples were thus trying to 
induce them to repudiate the religion of Scripture, and take 
up a new, and therefore a false religion. 

And suppose, farther, that the apostle well knew that it 
was commonly stated, and believed by many of his brethren, 
that he had apostatized from the divine Scriptures, and em- 
braced some other religion claimed to be better ; and that 
this belief had shorn him of his influence considerably, 
among his countrymen, at the same time that it was doing 
them great injustice and great damage. 

And suppose, again, that Paul himself knew that these 
impressions in regard to him were wholly untrue ; that in- 
stead of departing from their ancient religion, he was fol- 
lowing it strictly, in doctrine, spirit, letter, and truth. 

Now, all these are not only supposable things, but they 
are all well known, unquestioned, historic truths. And in 
view of them, I ask, is any thing more natural or reasona- 
ble than to conclude that Paul, in his old age, should feel it 
to be his bounden duty to set himself right before his coun- 
trymen in these important things ? He did not care to do 
this so much on his own account as on theirs ; for he saw 
that this false position in which some of his countrymen had 
placed him, was working immense injury to them. 

It seems to me, therefore, that if we approach the Epistle 
to the Hebrews with these simple and manifest truths before 
us, we can scarcely fail to read it understandingly. Its 
mysteries will vanish, and its arguments will appear in 
much greater strength, and both rhetorical and logical 
beauty, than if we suppose Paul attempting to excuse or 
justify himself for forsaking his old religion, and taking up 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBHEWS. 447 

a new one. This latter thing he did not do. He not only 
did not admit that he had taken up a new religion, or one 
single new tenet or doctrine of religion, but he contended 
and explained to the very last that he had not done so. 

I appeal to every paragraph in this Epistle, if it does 
not, at every point, claim and defend the faith once deliv- 
ered to the saints. From beginning to end the Epistle is an 
argument in support of the proper and essential identity 
of his present faith with the true and properly-understood 
religion of his fathers and of their Scriptures. 

Let the preface of this address announce its character : 
" God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in 
times past unto the fathers, by the prophets, hath in these 
last days spoken unto us by his Son." Thus, the book itself, 
whatever particular arguments it may contain, is conse- 
crated to this very subject ; and, as Dr. Belcher very prop- 
erly remarks, "it passes over early historical events as 
bearing upon these last ages ; and it traces, in all the forms 
of the Levitical priesthood, the constant reference to the 
one great, eternal sacrifice for sin." 

And then the apostle concludes his reasonings, Heb. viii. 
1 : " Now, of the things which vf e have spoken, this is the 
sum: We have such an High-priest, who is set on the right 
hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens ; a minis- 
ter of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the 
Lord pitched, and not man." ^ 

Here it is particularly declared that the priesthood then, 
and now, and always, is one and the same. 3l£n never were 
priests, and never formed any part of a priesthood ; they 
were used as mere instruments to teach the one and only 
priesthood. 

, To call the former " types " of the latter, does not give 
the clear idea to the general reader. They were types, it is 
true, but their more immediate ofiice and use was to teach 



448 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 

the true, and only true, doctrine of an atoning priest- 
hood. 

Those who find real, veritable, atoning priests in the Le- 
vitical ritual, find that which is not only untrue, but really 
absurd. A teaching ritual is one thing — a real priest is 
another. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 449 



CHAPTER LXX. 



Barnes's caricature of the epistle to the Hebrews. 



At this point it is convenient for me to quote from Mr. 
Albert Barnes, from his Introduction to his Notes on He- 
brews, I do so simply because I find the doctrines I wish 
to refute there stated in a pretty full and sufficiently 
convenient form. I could quote substantially the same 
leading sentiments from I know not how many others of 
equal standing. Indeed, they are not scarce in any of the 
libraries. He places the "two religions" in open and 
avowed conflict with each other, and makes Paul prove — it 
seems to me — the very reverse of what he intended. 

" The general purpose of this Epistle is to preserve those 
to whom it was sent from the danger of apostasy. Their 
danger on this subject did not arise so much from persecu- 
tion, as from the circumstances that were fitted to attract 
them again to the Jewish religion. The temple, it is sup- 
posed — and indeed, it is evident — was still standing ; the 
morning and evening sacrifice was still ofiered ; the splendid 
rites of that imposing religion were still observed ; the au- 
thority of the law was undisputed ; Moses was a lawgiver 
sent from God, and no one doubted that the Jewish form of 
religion had been instituted by their forefathers, in conform- 
ity with the directions of God; their religion had been 
founded amidst remarkable manifestations of the Deity, in 
15 



450 . BARNES'S CARICATURE OF 

flames, and smoke, and thunder ; it had been communicated 
by the ministration of angels ; it had on its side and in its 
favor all the venerableness and sanction of a remote anti- 
quity ; and it commended itself by the pomp of its ritual, 
and by the splendor of its ceremonies. On the other hand, 
the new form of religion had little or nothing of this to 
commend it. It was of recent origin ; it was founded by 
the Man of Nazareth, who had been trained up in their own 
land, and who had been a carpenter, and who had had no 
extraordinary advantages of education; its rites were few 
and simple ; it had no splendid temple-service ; none of the 
pomp and pageantry, the music and the magnificence of the 
ancient religion ; it had no splendid array of priests in mag- 
nificent vestments; and it had not been imparted by the 
ministry of angels ; fishermen were its ministers ; and by 
the body of the nation it was regarded as a schism or her- 
esy that enlisted in its favor only the most humble and 
lowly of the people. In these circumstances how natural 
it was for the enemies of the gospel in Judea to contrast 
the two forms of religion, and how keenly would Christians 
feel it! All that was said of the antiquity and the divine 
origin of the Jewish religion they knew and admitted ; all 
that was said of its splendor and magnificence they saw ; and 
all that was said of the humble origin of their own religion 
they were constrained to admit also. Their danger was not 
that arising from persecution ; it was that of being afiected 
by considerations like these, and of relapsing again into the 
religion of their fathers, and of apostatizing from the gospel ; 
and it was a danger which beset no other part of the Chris- 
tian world. 

" To meet and counteract this danger was the design of 
this Epistle. Accordingly the writer contrasts the two relig- 
ions in all the great points on which the minds of Christians 
in Judea would be likely to be afiected, and shows the supe- 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 451 

riority of the Christian religion over the Jewish in many 
respects, and especially in the points that had so much 
attracted their attention and affected their hearts." 

This is all sufficiently beautiful in sound, and rhetorical 
in flourish. The most it lacks — and that it almost entirely 
lacks — is historic truth, and correctness of description. 
This long extract possesses very little of either of these two 
qualities, and really nothing of either that is important. 

The most stringent hypercriticism could not probably 
raise a doubt as to the meaning of the author's language in 
the two systems of religion Tie thus brings in contact. By 
the Jewish religion it undoubtedly means, not the mistaken 
views of revelation which prevailed with many or few in 
that age, but the written religion of the Old Testament, 
as it was, and still is, according to a true and proper con- 
struction thereof. And by Christianity he means a system 
of religion taught by Christ and the apostles, supposed to 
be at least different from this. 

'Now, I utterly deny the existence of any such Christian- 
ity. The history not only gives us no intimation of any 
such new religion, but on the contrary, it does give us un- 
mistakable evidence that the religion preached by Christ 
and the apostles was wholly :and exclusively drawn from the 
Old Testament Scriptures. I ask Mr. Barnes to point out 
an item of religious teaching — a doctrine, tenet, or truth, 
which they did not claim to be provable by the Old Testa- 
ment writings, and which is not this day seen and read 
therein. In what did this Christianity consist ? I ask him 
to point out, not an entire religious system, which we are 
told was then and there set up, but I ask to be cited to one 
single item of a system — one tenet, one doctrine. And in 
this I ask what no man can answer. 

Mr. Barnes teaches that at that time that which had pre- 
viously been the true religion — of "divine origin" — the 



452 BARNES'S CARICATURE OF 

"ancient religion" — ceased to be the true religion, and in its 
stead another system was set up, quite diiferent, and highly- 
antagonistic thereto. This is a bold departure from historic 
truth. There is not one word of history to support it that 
I know of; but on the contrary, all the history there is, 
utterly denies such an hypothesis. 

He says of the old religion — now extinct — that it " had 
been founded amidst remarkable manifestations of the 
Deity, in flames, and smoke, and thunder." Here, too, he 
is equally mistaken. No such historic fact is dreamed of in 
the book. The religion w^hich the prophets, and John, and 
the apostles taught, existed as the divinely-revealed religion, 
and had proved itself the true religion to thousands, more 
than two thousand years before Moses saw Mount Sinai. 

Mr. Barnes contrasts " the two religions " which he says 
existed in Palestine in the time of the apostles — the one ar- 
rayed in splendor, magnificence, and gorgeous decorations ; 
while the other — "of recent origin" — had almost no rites 
and no attractions. Here, too, we have abundance of fash- 
ionable rhetoric, but are wofully lacking in historic correct- 
ness. There were, indeed, two religions, and two Churches, 
in that day, which were widely separate, and highly hostile 
to each other ; but they were by no means the two which 
Mr. Barnes sees. The one was the Church of Scripture, the 
Church of Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaiah, Daniel, John, 
Matthew, Peter, and Paul : this was the Church of Jesus 
Christ. The other was a deistic Church — " of recent ori- 
gin" — with a totally new, and totally false religion, which 
then began to be called, and has ever since been called, a 
Jewish Church. The former of these was the embodiment 
of " the ancient religion," and is the embodiment of that 
same revealed religion to-day. Mr. Barnes and myself are 
members of that Church, and profess that religion. The 
latter was then and there originated by those who aposta- 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 453 

tized from the old Church by rejecting the Christ of it. 
These two branches having formerly been associated in 
the same Church, and both now claiming to he the true 
ancient Church, naturally followed the old forms of worship ; 
at least, there was no radical change. For some years they 
mixed and mingled together in worship, to a considerable 
extent, in the same congregations. We are informed of 
this all through the Acts, and in many places in the Epistles. 
Christ and the apostles worshiped in the temple, and in the 
synagogues everywhere. It is nowhere intimated that those 
who believed in Christ made any sudden change in their 
external modes of worship. As they came to understand 
it from time to time, more fully, they lopped off those rites 
which pve-represented Christ's coming, because Christ had 
come. The history abundantly warrants the belief, that one 
might have attended worship in the same synagogue, or 
church, on several consecutive Sabbath-days — ^now the 
preacher disbelieves in Christ, and argues in favor of his 
rejection ; and now another preacher believes Jesus to be 
Christ, and argues in favor of that belief. And so in dif- 
ferent churches, on the same Sabbath, here you would find 
a believing preacher, and there a disbelieving preacher ; and 
as the feelings and belief of the people naturally so inclined 
them, they follow the preaching they prefer ; and so, in 
process of time, you would find them entirely separate. 
But we read of no radical change in outward form. In 
this respect there was much more change at the time of the 
Babylonian captivity than at the time of Christ. There we 
see the general origin of congregational worship. 

Neither is it by any means accurate to say that the Chris- 
tian religion was founded by the Man of ISTazaretk, who was 
a carpenter. Founded is not the proper word to use. Re- 
ligion was revealed. It existed innate, revealed or unre- 
vealed, and ever consisted in the relation between man as a 



454 BARNES'S CARICATURE OF 

sinner and God. There was never a time since this relation 
existed that Christianity did not exist. Even before the 
Saviour was promised or revealed, he existed in all his mer- 
ciful characteristics as a Saviour. A plan of salvation, and 
man's knowledge of it, are two things. Eeligion existed 
four thousand years before the 3Ian of Nazareth was born. 

And Mr. Barnes is wide of the mark when he tells us 
that " Christianity had an author more exalted in rank by 
far than the author of the Jewish system." Why, the man 
has just told us that the Jewish system had a divine author ; 
and now in the very next paragraph he tells us that Moses 
was its author ! 

What are we to understand when we are told that Moses 
was the author of religion as written in the Old Testament ? 
Then why do they not tell us that Matthew or Paul was the 
author of the New Testament religion ? 

"And all that was saic^ of the humble origin of their own 
religion they were constrained to admit also." 

No J sir ! That is one of the most essentially important 
things in the whole controversy that they did not admit. 
This was boldly and ignorantly charged against them by the 
rejecting Jews ; and it was mainly to meet and refute this 
charge that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written. Most 
assuredly the whole force of that argument goes to refute 
the notion of a " recent origin " to Christianity, and to place 
its origin coeval with the highest antiquity. Will any man 
now admit that his religion dates back no farther than the 
days of the apostles? Then what have Christians to do 
with the Old Testament and its religion ? What care we 
about the faith of Abel, the religion of Enoch, the right- 
eousness of Noah, and the sterling piety and high religious 
intelligence and inspiration of the prophets, and other Old 
Testament worthies, we sometimes speak of, if theirs was a 
different religion from that recommended to us ? 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 455 

Let any man show me that St. Paul professed or taught 
a religion "of recent origin," and he will cause me to 
renounce every lesson of his teaching as secular and erro- 
neous. 

The danger of Christians in those days, we are told, was 
of relapsing again into the religion of their fathers ; that 
is, they were in danger of imbibing the religion of the Old 
Testament, which he says was of divine origin. Well, are 
not people now in danger of falling into the religion of the 
Old Testament ? One-half the sermons I ever heard were 
arguments exhorting men to do that very thing. I would 
that our people to-day had the religion of Abel, of Enoch, 
of Noah, of Abraham, and of Ezekiel. And if that be apos- 
tasy, I can only say, I wish I possessed more of it. I am 
not afraid of any divine religion ; I fear only that which is 
of " recent origin." 

We are told that the design of this Epistle was to pre- 
vent men from embracing the religion of the Old Testa- 
ment! What theology! And yet Mr. Barnes himself 
claims this same Old Testament as an essential part of his 
Bible ! He says also, that St. Paul " contrasts the two relig- 
ions," and "shoAVS the superiority of the Christian religion 
over the Jewish in every respect." Yes, he says,, in every 
respect. 

Well, I can do no less, and perhaps need do no more, 
than present to Mr. Barnes an alternative, from which I 
think there is no escape. He either mystifies his subject, 
conducts his readers whither he himself would not go, and 
does injustice to himself, or he teaches infidelity. To say 
nothing of the history and the facts, it is philosophically 
impossible his teachings can be true. Neither he nor any 
one else believes them when reduced to practical thought. 
He wrote as he had seen others write. And the doctrine is 
assented to by Christians not in plain, practical common 



456 BARNES'S CARICATURE OF 

sense, but in a sort of mythical, imaginative, fanciful way. 
The verbiage is accepted, but the thought is not. 

And his Notes on the text of this Epistle contain many 
errors of the same kind. According to him, the religion of 
the Old Testament is Moses's religion. It is low, feeble, and 
unsuited to mankind, although it was of divine origin. It 
was unsubstantial, unsatisfying, a mere shadow got up for 
an occasion ; and of course, those who embraced it had but 
a miserable, sickly faith, unfit to live with, and certainly 
unfit to die with. 

And then the " new religion" is no better, for it represents 
the old as possessing all possible religious excellence, and its 
professors and adherents, many of them, as making up some 
of the brightest jewels in the Christian constellation. If I 
believed those teachings, I would discard both the Old and 
New Testaments, as contradictory, untrue, and unworthy of 
my confidence. 

St. Paul, in Heb. x., is misunderstood. He is comparing 
the true religion, not as some seem to suppose, with a for- 
merly existing religious system, but with what the old ritual 
observances would be if still continued. These things inter- 
woven into the texture of worship, when they pre-represented 
a coming state of the Church, were all right and in place ; 
but to continue them now, the Christ they adumbrated hav- 
ing come, is first, to deprive them of their religious signifi- 
cation ; secondly, to virtually deny the coming of Christ ; 
and thirdly, to repudiate the faith of the Church, which, 
before his coming, looked forward to that great event. 

And so he argues that the mere observance of the ritual 
never had any virtue in it beyond the indication of an obedi- 
ent disposition. Slain animals never had any sacrificial vir- 
tue. The legal observance of these things merely enabled 
the worshipers to look forward to the great sacrifice, as 
history enables us to look back. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 457 

How a religion of " divine origin,^^ " instituted in confomir 
ity with the directions of God,^^ could cease to be true, and 
require to be extirpated from the face of the earth, is more 
than I can conceive. But I am happy in knowing that 
such an idea exists only in the morbid fancies of theolo- 
gians, and not in the theology of revelation. 

It is perhaps not very remarkable that Mr. Barnes, though 
a Christian and a biblical scholar, should entertain such 
wild and contradictory notions as those above. Stranger 
things have happened. But it is very remarkable that 
such teachings, in a voluminous work on biblical exposi- 
tion, should pass current in a Christian country for twenty 
years. Not many stranger things than that have happened. 



458 FARTHER REMARKS ON 



CHAPTEE LXXI. 

FARTHER REMARKS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 

A BELIEF in Christ is not more universal, nor considered 
more necessary to true religious faith among Christians now, 
than it was in the Church at, and previous to, the birth of 
the Saviour. In this period it looks back historically to his 
actual life, work, and death; while in the other the faith 
looked forward to a future coming ; and of course, when- 
ever his appearance should be asserted, then the question of 
the identity of the individual must be determined. That 
must necessarily be an open question, to be settled at that 
time, and at no other. 

Now, it was affirmed of the man Jesus, that he was Christ; 
and it is certain that he was, or he was not. And now, how 
is a truly pious man to proceed in order to remain firm in 
the faith of his fathers ? Why, obviously, he must first de- 
termine as to the truth of the claim to the Messiahship on 
the part of Jesus ; and upon supposition that he was the 
Christ, no matter how he might think about it, he must re- 
ceive him. If he believe the truth, then he receives Christ 
according to the ancient faith, according to his personal 
faith, according to the Scriptures. To reject him, he being 
the Christ, is, of course, to apostatize from the ancient, as 
well as from the present faith of the Church. 

How, then, can Macknight say — Epidles, p. C)Ob — that 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 459 

'Hlie unbelieving Jews were exhorted to forsake the Law of 
Moses and embrace the gospel"? No man that ever saw the 
Emerald Hills could be guilty of a greater blunder. Christ 
Jesus was the Christ of the Law of Moses ; and in order to 
embrace the Christ of the Law of Moses, you must forsake 
the Law of Moses ! That is exactly the logic. 

If Jesus was the Christ, then he was the great center, life, 
and object of faith in the Law of Moses — in all the Old 
Testament teachings. Then how can you maintain this 
faith but by believing and receiving the Christ of it ? And 
so Jesus being the Christ of prophecy, and of ancient prom- 
ise, Paul stood firm upon these prophecies and promises in 
receiving him, and he exhorted others to receive him like- 
wise by adhering firmly to the ancient faith; and so he ex- 
horted and explained in this Epistle, that to forsake Christ 
was to forsake the ancient faith. Paul's religion was a new 
religion, if Jesus was not Christ ; but if he was^ then Chris- 
tianity is true, and Paul stands firmly in the faith of his 
fathers. 

This was most certainly the state of the case between 
Paul and his unbelieving countrymen. Those who did not 
receive Christ, of course branded Christianity as a new 
religion, at war with the. Scriptures. And Dr. Macknight 
strangely admits it ! That admission by a Christian is an 
absurdity ! 

But this was the state of things with the Hebrew people 
when Paul addressed to them this circular letter. Hjs 
object of course was, to reach as far as he could the entire 
Hebrew people. It was admirably adapted and well timed 
for all classes and shades of belief It was the very thing 
most needed by the firm, decided Christian Hebrew ; and 
it was the very thing most needed by the feeble and the 
wavering; and the thing most needed by the mistaken 
Christian Hebrews, who were trying to gear into a post- 



460 FARTHER REMARKS ON 

Messianic state of the Church such typical forms used in 
worship as must in the nature of things precede the 
Messiah's coming ; and so also, it was the very thing most 
needed by the out-and-out opposers of Jesus. The argu- 
ments were well fitted to reach them, if any thing could. 

Paul never argued to a Hebrew " that Christ ivas superior 
to MosesJ^ That would have been a very useless argument 
to address to a Jew. That was universally held. It was 
one of the very first and most central tenets of the univer- 
sal Jewish faith. The writers who make this mistake, fail 
to make the very important distinction which then existed in 
the Jewish mind between Jesus and Christ Paul argues the 
exaltation of Jesus, showing that he possesses the superi- 
ority by which he is proved to be Christ. Everybody ad- 
mitted the transcendent superiority of Christ. The question 
was. Was Jesus the Christ ? On this question, which was 
indeed the only one in issue, he makes the Scriptures the 
straight-edge by which it is tested, and shows that the man 
Jesus answers all the descriptions and meets all the char- 
acteristics attributed to Christ. Hear him: "Seemg then 
that we have a great High-priest, that is passed into the 
heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our pro- 
fession^ This holding fast to the old profession does not 
look like a " new religion." And that he means the old 
profession written in the Scriptures, is evident. And again, 
"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without 
wavering." 

Dr. Ebrard, the continuator of Olshausen's Commentary, 
says, on Heb. viii. 10, that the death of Christ "was a perfect 
sacrifice, once offered in opposition to the Old Testament 
animal sacrifices." Then there are two systems of sacrifice 
in revealed religion : that in the New Testament is set up 
in opposition to that taught in the Old. Will this view 
bear the test of examination ? 



THE EPISTLB TO THE HEBREWS. 461 

The real and true system of " Old Testament animal 
sacrifices " is seen to-day in Christian worship, in every mi- 
nutia of its detail, as fully as it was or could be when these 
sacrifices were practiced ; and indeed, no one will question, 
that it is far better understood now than it could have been 
before Christ. But how well anybody understood the true 
intent and meaning of these sacrifices then, is not now the 
question. We have to do only with them as they really 
were and are. What tenet of religious faith were they 
really and truly intended to inculcate ? Do they teach one 
faith, and the New Testament system of sacrifice another 
in opposition thereto ? Then, I ask, which one is true relig- 
ion, and which is false ? Two systems of religious faith, in 
^^ opposition'^ to each other, cannot both be true. 

The simple truth is, there never were two scriptural doc- 
trines of sacrificial atonement. There was never but one. 
Scriptural theology know^s but one. 

The bleeding animal was nothing but an instrument used 
for the purpose of teaching, beforehand, the sacrifice for sin 
made by the Son of God. ISou might as well call a black- 
board, mathematics, as to call a slaughtered animal an 
atonement for sin. They are both instruments, and nothing 
more. The one is used to assist in teaching mathematics, 
and the other in teaching the Christian doctrine of Christ's 
atonement by sacrifice before that sacrifice was seen. 

This was always the case, and was always so taught in all 
the Scriptures. It is not true that the thing came to be 
different in the days of Paul from what it was in the days 
of Moses. The animal was not continued to be used in the 
days of Paul as an instrument of teaching, because the 
7'easons for its use did not then exist. 

.And to refer again to the illustration just used: The man 
in the practice of mathematical pursuits does not now use 
the black-board, but he has laid it aside, not surely because 



462 FARTHER REMARKS ON 

he has discovered it to be wrong in principle, but because 
the reasons for its use no longer exist. 

There is not now, nor was there ever taught in any part 
of revelation, any other doctrine of sacrifice for sin than the 
voluntary death of Jesus Christ. Abel taught it ; Noah 
taught it ; and so did Abraham, and Moses, and Isaiah, and 
Christ, and Paul. But some of these men lived and taught 
before the period of Christ's actual offering. Now, how 
could they teach the doctrine? In no other w^ay than by 
representing the thing by some figure or mode before it hap- 
pened ; and to do this, they used such instrumentality as 
was deemed most apt and befitting. 

The animtl sacrifice never had virtue in it or about it ; 
nor was such doctrine ever taught by any who understood 
the Scriptures aright — certainly the Old Testament never 
so taught. But inasmuch as the real cross and sacrificial 
victim could not be presented to the Church before the 
appearance, as it is to us now, the same idea, the same doc- 
trine, the same thing, had to be presented in some other 
way. And how could this >e done ? I know of no other 
way than by some naturally significant and appropriate em- 
blem, sign, type, prefigurement, or symbol ; something which 
would represent the true idea as plainly as it could be repre- 
sented, under the circumstances, to a rude, unlettered people. 

And moreover, it is well known that in those ages, there 
being a great lack of the use of letters, as compared with 
the present, symbolical representation was used very much, 
by all classes of teachers, in the inculcation of such lessons 
and doctrines as were taught. In these ages we have meas- 
urably laid those instruments aside, because we have better 
ones. 

But while all this is true, it is also abundantly true, that 
the Jewish people in early times, and even down to the time 
of Christ, many of them, had but a feeble and imperfect 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 463 

knowledge of this great doctrine of atonement, thus symboli- 
cally and emblematically taught. Indeed, it is quite prob- 
able, if not certain, that in these times no one understood it 
as well as it is understood now ; and so we might readily 
suppose that many Jews so far misunderstood their own 
Scripture teachings, as to suppose that great meritorious 
importance attached to the animal itself They saw in tm- 
light ; and if they lived up to the light they had, they were 
Christians. 

Paul understood the matter perfectly, whether the igno- 
rant masses, or the scholastic Pharisees as ignorant in relig- 
ion as they, did or did not ; and so, when Dr. Ebrard says, 
as above, that Paul, in the Hebrews, taught a doctrine of 
sacrifice in " opposition to the Old Testament animal sacri- 
fices," he states what cannot be true. Paul taught in accord- 
ance with the Old Testament, but in opposition to its 
misconstructions. If Paul taught in opposition to any 
thing in the Old Testament, then I want to know from Dr. 
Ebrard which one is right ; because I want to disbelieve 
and repudiate the one that is wrong. 

But the truth is, Paul taught in "opposition" only to 
those who misunderstood and mistaught the Old Testament, 
in order to induce them to conform to the Scriptures ; but 
not, as we are strangely told, to prevent them from doing so. 

If Christ or the apostles did or taught any thing in 
opposition to animal sacrifices as they are taught in the 
Scriptures, why do not we do the same thing ? On the con- 
trary, we preach and teach those things now cts the Old 
Testament teachers taught then, but not as many misunder- 
stood them. It is well known that in the days of the 
prophets many misunderstood those teachings,- attaching 
the importance to the instrument which was due to the 
lesson. And it is well known that the prophets corrected 
these errors as far as they could, and thus explained the 



464 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 

teachings on these subjects. See Isaiah i. 11, Jer. vi. 20, etc., 
Hos. vi. 6, Amos v. 22, Mic. vi. 6, etc., and other places in 
Psalms, Proverbs, etc. 

There is no opposition in the New Testament to these 
Old Testament doctrines and teachings. The opposition 
found there is, on the contrary, exclusively to a misunder- 
standing of these Old Testament lessons. 

If Paul were to write another Epistle to the Church now, 
he would controvert and instruct such teachers as Dr. Ebrard 
and others in the same way he did those in his day who in- 
culcated the same errors. 



WAS JESUS THE FOUNDER OF A SYSTEM? 465 



CHAPTEE LXXII. 

WAS JESUS CHRIST THE FOUNDER OF A SYSTEM OF 

RELIGION ? 

Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of as the Founder of 
Christianity, and there is certainly a very important sense 
in which this is most eminently true ; but this is not the 
sense generally intended and understood. Christ, as God, 
the great Jehovah, is the Founder and Maker of religion, 
and of every thing else that is true. But in this sense there 
was no origination of a religious system, nor of any part of 
a religious system, eighteen hundred years ago. Christ in 
his humanity, or in the days of his humanity, did most cer- 
tainly not found a religion. 

If religion was founded eighteen hundred years ago, 
under what conditions of salvation were men saved previ- 
ously ? 

That there are two systems of religion, or two religions, 
both true, is a clear impossibility, for the reason, several 
times previously stated, that religion is the relation which 
does truly subsist between God and man ; and the prac- 
tice of this religion is the observance or fulfilling of that 
relation on the part of man. 

Not only did not Jesus Christ found a religion, or "our 
religion," a system of religion as a whole, in the period of 
his advent, but I go much farther and deny that he then 



466 WAS JESUS CHRIST THE FOUNDER 

made any change, or introduced any new doctrine or article 
of faith into the religion which he found then existing and 
specifically written in the Old Testament. • 

If any man doubts this, he can satisfy himself by his 
failure, after sufiicient trial, to discover any such new relig- 
ious doctrine. 

The idea that religion, previously to the coming of Christ, 
was confined to some particular people, and that afterward 
it was adapted to, and was free for all mankind, is a devi- 
ation from simple historic truth which has been previously 
explained. 

The belief of many that the sacraments of Baptism and 
the Lord's Supper are new to religion, since the time of 
Christ, deserves perhaps but few additional words of ex- 
planation. 

There are naturally and necessarily two sacraments, nor 
can there be any others, nor can religion exist without these 
two. They belong necessarily to religion in all times, 
because religion has the two aspects to which they relate. 

In the first place, religion has to do with the individual 
man, directly, as between himself and God. The man owes 
direct and immediate allegiance to God, irrespective of 
other persons. This allegiance must not only eocist, but 
man's natural waywardness is such, that in order that it 
may continue to exist, and produce the best efiects upon his 
life and feelings, it is necessary that it be manifested, pub- 
licly solemnized, and made patent by some formal test or 
outward act declarative of the loyalty and fealty, that the 
sense of personal obligation may be kept fresh and vigorous 
in the soul. 

Here then mainly is the necessity for the Sacrament of 
Remembrance, "Do this in remembrance of me" — that 
is, continue to repeat this formal promise of personal fealty 
to God in Christ, that it be kept fresh and vigorous in the 



OF A SYSTEM OF RELIGION? 467 

memory, that the obligation be felt in its greatest force 
every day. Hence the Lord's Supper, as with sufBcient 
appropriateness it is generally called. And hence we submit 
to it, not once in life merely, but repeatedly from time to time. 

If the memory of man were not defective, and if, in prac- 
tical life, there were none of the thousands of streams of 
deleterious influence acting upon him which we see, and 
which tend so powerfully to carry him away by little and 
little from God, there would be no necessity for its repetition. 
Once would suffice. It answers the natural requirements by 
its frequent repetition. 

In the second place, religion has not only to do with indi- 
vidual men subjectively, but with the community-state of men. 
A man is not only an individual, but he is a member of 
society, an integral part of the community. A very large 
portion of man's character is made up of his social ingredi- 
ents and aspects. We are constantly acting upon others, 
and at the same time are being acted upon by others. No 
man lives or acts independently. What we will do depends 
much upon what others will do. And so, interchangeably, all 
through society, what others will do depends much upon 
what we shall do. Hence the necessity of an open profes- 
sion of religion. If there were but one or two men to be 
religious, a Church or a profession of religion might not be 
necessary. 

Now this community-state, or Church-state of religion, 
requires a sacramental obligation corresponding to its na- 
ture. Suppose a community with many religious persons in 
it, but with no outward act or test, personal to religious 
people, marking the distinction between religious and irre- 
ligious persons. None can fail to see the great advantage 
to religion derived from the mere personal token, mark, 
or indication of religion, publicly made, and which distin- 
guishes Christians from other persons. 



468 WAS JESUS CHRIST THE FOUNDER 

And hence the necessity and advantage of the setting 
apart, the designation of Christians to a holy life and calling 
which we signify in Baptism. 

Now, nature does not indicate particularly what instru- 
mentality shall be used in the outward performance of these 
obligations or sacraments, any more than in any other obli- 
gations or promises. The instrumental forms used before 
the coming of Messiah, as we now plainly see, were wonder- 
fully apposite, fitting, and useful. 

The Sacrament of Remembrance was coupled with the 
remembrance of a most wonderful and visible deliverance, 
while it taught in most beautiful symbol the great deliver- 
ance by Christ. And the Sacrament of Designation, too, 
in that period of the Church, has such instrumental forms 
thrown around it as make it wonderfully fitting and useful. 

These sacraments continue through all periods, because 
religion continues. The instrumental forms in which the 
sacramental obligations were administered before Christ, 
being of a forward-reaching, or adumbrant character, teach- 
ing the coming of Messiah, must of course cease to be used 
on the occurrence of that event ; but the sacraments them- 
selves continue necessarily and uninterruptedly. Since that 
time, the sacraments respectively are known in common 
parlance by the new instruments chosen and adopted by 
our Lord to be thereafter used in the administration of 
them. So we call the one the Lord's Supper, or the Eucha- 
rist, and the other Baptism, And so, in respect to the sacra- 
ments, no changes whatever in religion were made at the 
time of Christ. 

Very naturally it is seen, therefore, that the names these 
sacraments have acquired, are taken not from any literal 
significancy in them, but incidentally from the modes of ad- 
rainistering them. Circumcision means cutting all round, 
which in itself has no more religious or sacramental sig- 



OF A SYSTEM OF RELIGION? 469 

nificancy than passover has. But any one can see at a 
glance how natural it was for the sacraments to take on 
these names in that period of the Church. 

But w^hen the time arrived to which the bloody and pain- 
ful cutting rounds and the great deliverance by passing 
over pointed, these forms of administering the sacraments 
could go no farther, and other forms must needs be substi- 
tuted. And so we now call the same sacraments, as was 
formerly done, by the modes of administering them. And 
so religious washing, or Baptism, is .the name of the one, and 
sacred, or religious supper, or Lord's Supper, the name of 
the other. 

How natural and simple these things are when once 
understood! 

Some persons think they read of a new religion, partially 
or wholly, when they read of a " new commandment," in 
John xiii. 34. The language is : "A new commandment I 
give unto you, that ye love one another." This is certainly 
not new to religion, for love to the brethren must be essential 
to all religion ; and, moreover, it is taught all over the Old 
Testament. But it was new to them, the persons to whom he 
spake, or some of them, because they had so perverted and 
misread their own religion. And in 1 John ii. 7, 8, we read 
of a " new commandment," and that there is " no new com- 
mandment," evidently meaning that the teaching was old 
in religion, but new to them, because of their ignorance. 

New religious tenets are out of the question at any time, 
by any authority, or in any circumstances. Religion is only 
revealed. If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither 
will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead. 
Conditions of salvation cannot be changed. They grow 
out of the relation between God and man naturally. 

And this is very fully explained by Christ himself in his 
personal teachings : " Do not think that I will accuse you 



470 WAS JESUS CHRIST THE FOUNDER 

to the Father ; there is one that acciiseth you, even Moses, 
in whom ye trust ; for had ye believed Moses ye would have 
believed me, for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his 
writings, how shall ye believe my words?" John v. 45-47. 

This- is very plain, and cannot well be mistaken. He tells 
the Jews, his brethren, that the religion which he teaches is 
precisely that which Moses wrote — that is, that which is con- 
tained in the Old Testament. If they will but believe the 
one, they will necessarily believe the other. It was needless, 
he says, that they be accused or condemned for rejecting Im 
teachings, for this is already done in that they are guilty of 
rejecting the teachings of Moses, in whom they pretend to 
trust. The rejection of the one is the rejection of the other. 
And although they claimed to follow Moses, that amounted 
to nothing : they did not follow him, and the proof of it 
was that they did not follow Christ. 

Henry's Commentary tells us that the Church which 
Christ " founded," as set forth in Acts, was "vastly different 
from the Jewish Church, and erected on its ruins." 

That is sufficiently plain and sufficiently unreasonable, 
and has been sufficiently refuted already. It rests upon 
mere fancy, without one word of history either to prove it 
or create for it a reasonable probability. 

Bloomfield says, " The Jewish religion is like Hagar, the 
mother of slaves ; the Christian religion is like Sarah, the 
mother of a free posterity." 

Men are naturally carried into such fancies by following 
a line of divergence from truth when once unconsciously 
adopted. 

And Scott, in his Commentary, tells us of the " most 
extraordinary revolution that ever took place in the moral 
and religious state of the world." 

It was no revolution at all. Dr. Scott mistakes the whole 
thing. It was the most extraordinary teaching and revela- 



OF A SYSTEM OF RELIGION? 471 

tion of truth that ever took place, and by v/hich the Church 
was greatly instructed in the principles and truths of its 
own previously recorded religion. 

I acknowledge that the authors are mostly against me. 
Just in this particular channel I could quote from more 
than a score more, whose names I have not mentioned, all 
telling us of two different and opposing religions — ^that true 
religion did not exist among men until Christ founded it, 
eighteen hundred years ago. But I contend that the errors, 
when once pointed out, are palpable, and cannot admit of 
question when once fairly understood. So I do not pretend 
or undertake to make any argument on the points I raise, 
or debate any questions with the authors. All I find neces- 
ary to do, and all I undertake to do, is to point out the 
errors. Once seen, they cannot be believed. The authors 
themselves would be the last to believe them. But the 
multitude who have not the time, and in many cases not the 
ability, to examine into the correctness of the authors, are 
bewildered by such teachings. 



472 THE EPLSTLE TO THE ROMANS, 



CHAPTER LXXIII. 

SOME OBSERVATIOKS ON A FEW THINGS IN THE EPISTLE 

TO THE ROMANS. 

At the time of Christ — as has been previously explained — 
the Jewish religion, as it is frequently called — that is, the 
revealed religion of the Church — or Judaism, as it is also 
frequently called — was written, word for word. It had been 
written for hundreds of years, and the writing has been 
carefully preserved to the present time. Every man has it, 
or ought to have it, and can read it at his leisure. More- 
over, it is the duty of all men, not only to read and study 
it, but to adopt and drink in its spirit, that his soul and 
actions may be moved thereby. 

But it was clearly possible then, as at all other times, for 
the religion of the Church, though thus written and fixed, 
to be misconstrued, neglected, and misunderstood, by few or 
by many. There have been periods in the history of the 
Church when the larger portion of its members misunder- 
stood, and SO practically departed from, the religion they 
nominally professed. Three hundred and fifty years ago 
almost the entire Church had thus practically departed 
from its religion, and, as everybody knows, was seen running 
after various religious errors. Still, Christianity was the 
same then it was when the apostles preached it, and the 
same it is now. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 473 

Indeed, there has never been a time in the history of the 
Church but many errors of this sort might be pointed to, 
even in the hands of some of those who were among its 
appointed teachers. 

This state of things existed to a considerable extent when 
Jesus presented himself as Messiah. And it is true also, 
that these errors were very prevalent among the officers of 
the Church, and teachers of religion. But these errors are 
one thing — the religion of the Church is another and differ- 
ent thing. 

And now, it is indeed remarkable, that writers on the 
state of the Church and condition of religion in those times, 
confound these two things, and seem to speak of them indif- 
ferently and interchangeably. Indeed, they oftentimes 
speak of "the Jewish religion," of the "Mosaic system," 
of " Judaism," and other names by which the religion of 
the Church is frequently called, when they probably, and 
sometimes evidently, mean only the religious errors which 
some, or many, in those days, had ignorantly and surrepti- 
tiously foisted upon the religion of revelation, by miscon- 
struing its teachings. 

And these failures to discriminate between these two dif- 
ferent and opposite things, have led themselves and their 
numerous readers into many other errors of both a logical 
and practical kind. They unconsciously led to the doctrine, 
and the oft-repeated supposition, and even declaration, in 
various forms of expression, that the religion itself was de- 
fective, w^as only half-made, and was therefore repudiated 
by Christ and the apostles, and another and better religion 
was set up in its stead. 

Dr. Clarke, in his Preface to Notes on Romans^ has this 
paragraph: "He (St. Paul) treats his countrymen — ^the 
Jews — ^with great caution and tenderness. He has a natural 
affection for them ; w^as very desirous of winning them over 



474 thB^pistle to the Romans. 

to the gospel ; he knew that their passions and prejudices 
were very strong for their own constitution." 

Here are two errors which may be said to be dangerous. 
Jews, as such, needed no winning over to the gospel. Those 
w^ho were religious stood related to the gospel — that is, to 
true religion — in the same way that religious men do now, 
and always have done. If they were pious people, converted 
people, no matter when they were converted, whether before 
the birth of Christ or afterward, Paul had no need to win 
them over to any thing. All he could have desired of them 
was to stand firm in their present faith, as we exhort men 
now. If unconverted, they needed to be converted ; that is, 
converted to a firm belief and practice of true religion. 
They needed this just as men did twenty, fifty, or a hundred 
years before, and just as men do now, and for the same rea- 
sons ; not because they were Jews, but because they were 
sinners. 

If by the words, " their own constitution," he does not 
mean the written Old Testament Scriptures, I cannot see 
what he does mean. And that their feelings in favor of 
this should be set down, as it is, against them, is marvelous 
indeed. They were so strongly wedded to the Scriptures, 
that Paul had to use great arguments to induce them to re- 
nounce the word of God, and embrace a better religion. 

If that is not the teaching of Dr. Clarke, then I declare 
myself fairly unable to determine what his teaching is. 

In his remarks at the end of Romans, Dr. Clarke quotes 
and endorses the following from Dr. Taylor : " Yet the Jews 
everywhere warmly opposed the preaching of it" — that is, 
the gospel. 

To this I reply first, in the language of the Acts of the 
Apostles, italicizing such words as I wish to direct particular 
attention to : "And the same day there were added unto 
them about three thousand souls." "And they continuing 



THE EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 4T5 

daily, with one accord in the temple, and breaking of bread 
from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and 
singleness of heart, praising God and having favor with all 
the peopled "And the Lord added to the Church daily,'' 
"Howbeit many of them which heard the word of God 
believed, and the number of the men was about five thou- 
sandJ' "Finding nothing how they might punish them 
(Peter and John) because of the people.^' "And the midti- 
tude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul.'' 
"And believers were the more added to the Lord, mtdtititdes, 
both men and women." " There came also a multitude out 
of the cities round about unto Jerusalem," etc. "And be- 
hold ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine." "And 
the word of God increased; and the number of disciples 
multiplied in Jerusalem greatlyJ' "And the people with one 
accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake." 
"Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard 
that Samariu had received the word of God, they sent unto 
them Peter and John." "And passing through, he preached 
in all the cities, till he came to Cesarea." "And all that 
dwelt at Lnjdda and Saron saw him, and* turned to the Lord." 
"And it was known through all Joppa ; and many believed 
in the Lord." 

These, and many other quotations which might be made, 
of a. similar character, particularly before and about the 
time of the crucifixion, refer exclusively to Jews, And later 
we read, "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands — 
fivpcddeg, myriads — of Jews there are which believe." 

And in the second place, I remark, that it is not stated 
specifically, or with any direct certainty, anywhere in the 
Scriptures, that any considerable or large numbers of Jews 
opposed the preaching of the gospel. The Jewish opposi- 
tion to Christ, the apostles, or the gospel, is never predicated 
of the people in any large numbers, but of the officials. 



476 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 

From all the history of those times we have, in and out of 
the Scriptures, it would be exceedingly hazardous to say 
whether a majority of the Jewish people did or did not 
receive Christ and the gospel most heartily. 

The remark of Dr. Taylor is, therefore, most extrava- 
gantly wild, having its support in popular prejudice alone, 
but with none in historic truth, for in the very face of scrip- 
tures just quoted. Dr. Taylor says the Jews everywhere 
warmly opposed the preaching of the gospel. A more whole- 
sale falsification of Scripture history could not be made ; 
because it is notorious and unquestionable that at that time 
nobody either preached or believed the gospel but the very 
"Jews" named by Dr. Taylor; and at this time they 
amounted to hundreds of thousands, and no doubt to 
millions. 

It is indeed alarming that such wild and utterly false and 
extravagant teachings go unrebuked in a Christian country. 

In his prefatory remarks to his Notes on Eomans xi., the 
Doctor tells us that " this chapter is of the prophetic kind. 
It was by the spirit of prophecy that the apostle foresaw the 
rejection of the Jews." And again, " For the Jews are in 
fact rejected." And repeatedly in other places, he speaks 
in equally broad and unqualified terms of the " rejection," 
the " casting away," of the Jews. 

But from the apostle himself we read : " I say, 'then, 
Hath God cast away his people? God forbid! For I also 
am an Israelite, etc. God hath not cast away his people 
which he foreknew." 

And when the Doctor comes to comment particularly on 
the text, it appears that "the rejection is only of the obsti- 
nate and disobedient." Verily, that is true, but that is a 
very different thing from the rejection of the Jews. The 
rejection was precisely the same as is always seen in God's 
administration, in that age, and in this. Nothing peculiar 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMAKS. 477 

occurred at that time, except that St. Paul took occasion to 
allude to and explain the matter. The Jews were certainly 
not rejected. Such a remark was far more improper than 
it would be now to say that the Americans are rejected. 
Probably one-half of the Jews were rejected, and perhaps 
four-fifths of the Americans are rejected. But the former 
were not rejected as Jews, because they were Jews ; neither 
are the latter rejected because they are Americans. All 
who are rejected are rejected because, and only because, 
they are sinners — " obstinate and disobedient sinners." 

I see, in the actual facts, no justification in saying that the 
Jews were rejected, any more than there would be in saying 
that the Gentiles were rejected. In truth, a far greater pro- 
portion of the latter than of the former. were rejected. But 
neither Jews nor Gentiles, as such, were either " called " or 
" cast away." The simple, practical rules of religion were 
the same then they are now. These were the conditions of 
salvation : there was the Church — now choose you this day 
whom you will serve. The oQer of salvation was always 
made, as it is now, to individual persons, and in no other 
way. " For there is no difiference between the Jew and the 
Greek ; for the same Lord over all, is rich unto all that call 
upon himJ' 

I am therefore unable to see the propriety of such re- 
marks as the following, which are met with so frequently in 
Dr. Clarke's Notes on this Epistle and elsewhere : " If the 
Jews have broken the everlasting covenant, the Gentiles 
shall be taken into it." I cannot see that either Jews or Gen- 
tiles, as such, have broken any covenant, or were taken into 
any. He frequently speaks of " the fall of the Jews,^ and 
of " the calling of the Gentiles.^' To such remarks I am 
unable to attach any practical meaning that will harmonize 
W'ith the plain history of facts. 

Most assuredly the Gentiles were always called ; nothing 



478 THE EPISTLE' TO THE ROMANS. 

is more plainly written in the Old Testament, as I have 
abundantly quoted. They were free to come in and become 
Jews ; and there was to be " no difference " between those 
who were in before, and those who would come in from time 
to time. It is true, however, as before explained, that at the 
time of the apostles, by direction of the Saviour, the minis- 
try was made more outgoing and missionary in its labors 
than previously; though there was no radical change. 
These facts cannot be denied, either by Dr. Clarke or any 
one else, for they are patent and notorious. 



RELATION BETWEEN JEWS AND GENTILES. 479 



CHAPTER LXXIV. 

CORRECTION OF SOME POPULAR ERRORS RESPECTING THF 
SPECIFIC RELATION BETWEEN JEWS AND GENTILES. 

For reasons growing out of the nature of religion and 
of man, the Almighty saw fit, in the promulgation of relig- 
ion, and its permanent establishment in all time in the 
world, to form a religious nucleus; to throw strong religious 
influences around this concentrated center, and so warm it 
by divine grace as to cure it of idolatry, and in time cause 
its religious influence to radiate and leaven the whole lump 
of mankind. 

And the thing was set on foot, beginning in a certain 
family. The name of the head of this family chanced to 
be Abram, or Abraham, and he was afterward prophet- 
ically or religiously called Israel. This course of instruc- 
tion could have no sudden termination, but would, at the 
proper time, and in the proper way, naturally wear ofi* and 
difiuse itself imperceptibly among the common and riper 
afiairs of life. Nevertheless, certain particular features of 
it, of a more instrumental kind, might go into disuse at 
once. 

And the plan was, that all along, while Providence was 
throwing such a column of light on this people, that all the 
rest of the world — as many as would — were not only per- 
mitted, but commanded, to go amongst them and be relig*- 



480 ERRORS RESPECTING THE RELATION 

ious too. These people, and all who came amongst, and 
were amalgamated with them, were called after the name of 
the ancestor of the central stock — Israelites. 

In process of time these people had grown to proportions 
of considerable nationality, and the particular theocratic 
feature of their government, so necessary in their early 
history, had now measurably or wholly disappeared, and 
the nation divided into two separate and distinct nations, 
the 5ne part still retaining the name of Israel, while the 
other, taking the name of their principal tribe, were called 
Jews. And in process of ages, the Judah, or Jeiv, party be- 
coming much more prominent in history and importance 
than the other, its name measurably absorbed the whole ; 
and such of them as clung together and remained in the 
Church, were all, after many ages, called Jews in common 
parlance; though the others, when spoken of separately, 
were called Samaritans, after the name of the region of 
country they mostly inhabited, after many years. And at a 
still later period we find still another branch of the Jewish 
Church, called Hellenists, or Hellenistic Jews. These lived 
mostly in Egypt, spoke the Greek language, and had their 
temple, or central place of worship, at Heliopolis, and be- 
came quite numerous. 

All the Jews — that is, the Hebrew Jews, the Samari- 
tans, and the Hellenists — had the same religion always, the 
official versions of the Scriptures held by each, in their 
respective languages, being almost exactly similar. In later 
ages, however, at or near the Christian era, some philo- 
sophic societies, or schools, assumed to be religious teachers, 
and some of them greatly perverted the Scriptures, and 
taught many things the Scriptures did not teach. 

By this time, all people professing true religion, of whom 
we have any extended history, were found among the so- 
called Jews ; and it became the comnfon name of the people 



BETWEEN JEWS AND GENTILES. 481 

holding the revealed religion ; and so the diiference between 
the two parties — the religious and the irreligious — was very- 
wide and distinct. 

These great parties, therefore, came to be known in all 
religious — that is, in all Jewish history — as, on the one 
hand, Jews; and on the other, the nations — ^the common 
term, nations, embracing all nations except the Jews. " The 
Nations " we translate Gentiles. So that after the Jews and 
their religion came to be well established in the world, there 
was this broad distinction kept up between the professors of 
the revealed religion, and the heathen or idolatrous nations, 
or Gentiles. And so away along in comparatively late 
periods in Jewish history, we have the familiar distinction 
of Jews and Gentiles, 

With these facts before us, what meaning can we attach 
to the remark of Dr. Clarke, in Romans iv. 16? and what 
argument can we allow him to draw from it, that " the 
promise was given to Abraham while he w^as yet a Gentile " ? 
Abraham was never a Gentile, nor was he ever a Jew. K"o 
such distinction was known among men for many ages after 
Abraham lived. Indeed, Gentile never did mean any thing 
but a mere general name given by Jews to all people out of 
the Church, and this was in later periods of their history. 

To this it might be replied, that Gentile, in common par- 
lance, means all persons other than the lineal children of 
Jacob. But this cannot be true, for the reason that such a 
clear distinction did not exist after the settlement of the 
Israelites in Palestine. From that time to the Christian 
era, they were distinguished for their religion, without par- 
ticular refemnce to birth-origin, and w^ere called Jews or 
Israelites, until the latter came to be called Samaritans, and 
the others Hellenists. After the giving of the law at Mount 
Sinai, the Church no more consisted of the descendants by 
bQ>tli from the patriarchs exclusively ; for both the law and 
16 



482 ERROES RESPECTING THE RELATION 

the practice of the Church was to disciple as many from 
without as they could. And we cannot doubt that in this 
period, which was about fifteen hundred years, that the 
influx was very great. 

There is very little said in the Scriptures from which we 
may draw a satisfactory conclusion as to the proportion of 
Jews in any particular age, who were pure descendants 
from Jacob, or of foreign nations, respectively. We know 
it was the uniform law of the Church to receive all who 
would come in, and to make no difference between them ; 
and of course, after one or two generations they became 
amalgamated so that they could not be distinguished. 

We see it incidentally mentioned in one place — Est. viii. 
17 — that "many of the people of the land became Jews.'' 
And we see many prophecies in various places holding out 
the idea distinctly that the Jewish religion — that is, revealed 
religion--would embrace and swallow up all nations and 
people. And the belief of many, that this extension of 
religious faith over and amongst the nations was to be en- 
tirely postponed for a thousand years or more, until they 
would be " called," is not only entirely gratuitous, without 
a w^ord of support in Scripture, but it violates the whole 
policy of God's plan of redeeming grace. 

The Jews, like others, were a mixed people ; even from 
the first they were but half-breeds, so far as concerned 
descent from Jacob ; for his sons did not marry their sisters. 
But in later ages, surely it could be said of not very many 
that they were one-twentieth part of the blood of Jacob ; 
though at the same time it is true that many high and in- 
fluential families could trace their lines of genealogy, on the 
paternal side, back to Jacob. 

Jew was the name of the people who held the revealed relig- 
ion, without exclusive reference to hirth-origin. 

Great numbers of *Tews ceased to be Jews at various 



BETWEEN JEWS AND GENTILES. 483 

times, in various countries. How ? By departing from the 
religion and fellowship of the Church ; and their descend- 
ants were generally lost sight of so far as " Jews " or the 
Church was concerned. For instance : most of those car- 
ried captive to Babylon, six hundred years before Christ, 
ceased to belong to the Church, and they and their posterity 
were never afterward counted or spoken of as Jews, but 
became mingled and lost in other nationalities. And so we 
read in Taylor^s Manual of Ancient History^ p.. 171 : 

"When Cyrus — as God had foretold — tissued a decree 
permitting the return of the Jews to their native land, (B. 
C. 536,) he entrusted the execution of it to Zerubbabel, who 
was the grandson of the last king of Judah. The number 
of those who returned appears not to have exceeded fifty 
thousand persons ; and hence the Jewish traditions declare 
that ' only the bran came out of Ba^bylon, while the flour- 
stayed behind.' " 

Josephus states the number -wlm. returned from Babylon 
at forty-two thousand four hundred and sixty-two. {Anti- 
gm%s, Book II., c. 1.) 

Kitto^s Cyclopedia, Article Captivity, says: "The great 
mass of the Israelitish race,, nevertheless, remained in dis- 
persion. Previous to the captivity many Israelites had set- 
tled in Egypt, (Zech. x. 11,. Isa. xix. 18,) and many Jews 
afterward fled thither from Nebuzaradan (Jer. xli. 17).. 
Others appear to have established themselves in Sheba,. 
where Jewish influence became very powerful." 

So it seems that at this time abrasion, absorption, and 
expatriation, of one kind or another, had reduced the Jewish 
people to a mere handful^ — less^ than fifty thousand; and 
from this little stock they start again. 

And then we read again from^ Taylor^s Jfamta^— about 
B. C. 445 — that, '^Ptolemy Soter besieged Jerusalem, and 
stormed it on th^- Sabba^th^lay ; he carried away one hun- 



484 ERRORS RESPECTING THE RELATION. 

dred thousand captives;" and in a few centuries they be- 
came absorbed by other races. 

So that the continued unity of the Jewish people is a 
myth which largely and repeatedly violates the well-known 
history of the case. 

And now, at the time of the Christian era, a rather sin- 
gular, though at the same time very natural, transformation 
took place in the Jewish descent, and in the names of par- 
ties. The Church split, and divided into two distinct parties : 
the unbelieving or rejecting Jews left the Church, aposta- 
tized, and set up a new religion ; and the believing, or Christ 
party remained firm in the old religion. The outside na- 
tions, or Gentiles, were not particularly afiected any way 
by this split in the Church. The apostate Jews, though they 
wholly renounced Judaism — their former religion — still 
claimed to be true Jews ; that is, the true Church. This 
claim was based upon a simple hypothetical fact, which, if 
true, fully entitled them to it, and would have clearly 
proved the Christian party to be apostates. This great ques- 
tion was. Was Jesus the Christ ? If he was, then it fol- 
lows that the unbelieving Jews were apostates ; and if he 
was not, then the Christian Jews were apostates. Both 
parties claimed to be true Jews — the true Church ; and we 
Christians believe that the former were right and the latter 
wrong; and w^e see it several times so stated in the New 
Testament. They said they were Jews, but were not, and 
did lie. He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, by merely 
calling himself such ; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, 
who receives Christ, and possesses the Christian religion of 
Jews. 

But when the true Jewish Church came to be called by 
the name of Christ, there was no one to contend with them 
as to who should be called Jews; and so the false Jews — 
though by no means entitled to it — clung to the name, and 



^x^ JEWS AND GENTILES. 485 

.ed to them to this day. Nobody cared 
it has been co^ ^ 

about it. ^denominational distinction of Jew and Gen- 

■"^^^'eitirely changed in common parlance. Instead 

tile ^^^xishing between heathen people and the true Church, 

^f^y understood to distinguish between the false, apos- 

^^ ^fJews, on the one hand, and the true Church and all 

^^on the other. 

^mes sometimes change, but they never either give or 
^ermine the character of things. 

From these simple, well-known facts, it is easily seen that 
the relative names of Jew and Gentile have an entirely dif- 
ferent meaning, since the time of Christ, from what they 
had before. They distinguish different things; and the 
failure to notice these facts has given rise to many hurtful 
errors. 



\ 

486 POLITICAL STATE OF THEj^etts 

\ 

\ 



CHAPTER LXXV. 

CONCERNING THE CIVIL, OR POLITICAL, STATE O. 
JEWS, AND WHY AND HOW FAR THAT WAS A PECU? 
ITY OF THAT PERIOD OF THE CHURCH. 

It was the divine policy, in order to establish a eentn 
religious nucleus in the world, that the Israelites should be, 
for a long period in their early history, kept in h very 
isolated and exclusive situation as to other nations; and 
this made it necessary that their civil affairs should be of a 
strict, rigid, and peculiar character. And hence we have 
what we call a Theocracy ; though of the details, and 
indeed much of the practical principles of a Theocracy, we 
know but little. In their earlier history, when an isolated 
condition was more necessary than it afterward became, 
their government was patriarchal and very simple ; but in 
process of time their condition became less and less isolated 
and exclusive, and they took on such forms of government 
as public sentiment, individual opinion, and surrounding 
circumstances, seemed to suggest or call for. 

The Jewish civil government was by no means always the 
same, and whatever it was in form from time to time, it was 
never in any way identical with their religion. Civil and 
ecclesiastical jurisdiction were separate and distinct. 

In the Jewish Theocracy, God was the Euler and Gov- 
ernor. And so he ought to be in all governments; and 
so he is and must be in all well-regulated governments. 



POLITICAL STATE OF THE JEWS. 487 

The members of the Church before Christ, being identical 
with those of the Jewish commonwealth, or Jewish persons 
being horn into the Churchy is neither quite so much of an 
invariable fact, nor quite so much of an exclusive peculiar- 
ity, as many suppose. 

So long as the Jewish state remained true to the Old 
Testament Church, the children of Jews were considered 
members of both. But the Jewish apostasy, about the time 
of the death of Christ, unfortunately included most of the 
State officials; and so they carried \hQ' State, so to speak, 
with them into the apostasy ; so that their children — those 
of the apostates — were not born into the Church; they 
followed their parents. And likewise the children of the 
Christian Jews who remained in the Church, followed their 
parents. They found themselves, by birth, in the Church of 
their parents ; and this rule has not been materially de- 
parted from to this day. 

All persons have some religion, though some observe 
much more strictness, and fidelity, and zeal, in their religious 
tenets and duties than others. The children of Christian 
parents are known and recognized as Christians everywhere, 
nominally at least, both by themselves and everybody else ; 
and so we speak of the countries inhabited by these people 
as Christendom, An isolated instance of apostasy is but 
rarely seen. Most of these persons, however, pay but little 
attention to the practical duties of their own religious faith. 
So it was before the time of Christ. They were all nomi- 
nally Jews, as the people of Christendom are all nominally 
Christians ; understanding by these terms, Jew and Chris- 
tian, not different people with different religions, or a differ- 
ent Church, but the same people — descendants of the same — 
.with the same religion and the same Church, but in different 
periods called by these different names. 

It is quite likely, however, though not certain — applying 



488 POLITICAL STATE OF THE JEWS. 

the remark, as we must in both cases, to very great periods of 
time,- and great variety in manners — that since Christ, more 
attention has been generally paid to the strict legal differ- 
ence between practical and nominal professors than previ- 
ously. 

Most of the officials among the Jews at the time of the 
separation, in the age of the apostles, having gone with the 
apostates in rejecting Christ, the Jewish State was understood 
to lie in that channel ; though probably one full half, or 
perhaps much more, of the Jewish people, remained in the 
Church with the apostles, and so were not generally after- 
ward counted with the Jewish nationality. Not long after 
this, the national Jew^s, as we might designate them, fell into 
extensive and disastrous warfare with the Komans, and their 
nationality finally suffered dismemberment. 

But previously to this separation, when they all professed 
the true religion, the rule which recognized the children of 
Jews as being Jews in the religious sense, was about the same 
as that w^hich now recognizes all children of Christians as 
Christians. In both cases the religion is nominal merely ; 
they w^ere pious only as they becatae so individually. 

But it should be particularly noticed that the separation 
of the Jews, which had been so fully spoken of in these 
chapters, was twofold — of two kinds. At the same time 
that the unbelieving Jews went out of the Churchy the be- 
lieving. Christian Jews went out of the Jewish State, if their 
condition might be so called ; for it will be noted that their 
nationality ceased to exist about twenty-seven years before 
this time. 

They were now a mere Roman province. So they were 
subjects of the Roman government, and were permitted by 
the government merely to exercise some little matters of 
jurisdiction, almost if not wholly of a religious kind. It 
is therefore but very partially true indeed, that the Jews had 



POLITICAL STATE OF THE JEWS. 489 

any kind of a government at this time. They had but very 
little more than a Church government. 

The great split about religion, therefore, whether Jesus 
was or was not the Christ, had naturally the effect of work- 
ing this twofold change. The unbelieving Jews went out of 
the Church, because the Church continued the same in the 
hands of the other party. And this other party — the Jews 
who held to Christ — went out of the Jewish commonwealth, 
what there was left of it, because all their civil aspects continr 
ued the same in the hands of that party. 

So that in civil and political respects, the unbelieving or 
apostate Jews must thenceforward be regarded as the Jews ; 
whilst in all religious and ecclesiastical respects, the believ- 
ing or Christian Jews must be regarded as the Jews. 

The Christian Jews did not break off their civil relations 
with their former associates at once, and by any formal act. 
And yet we see that the dissociation increased more and 
more, more and more, and in a comparatively short time 
became complete. 

And when the Jewish rulers, shortly after, revolted 
against the Koman government, the Christian party, to a 
man, withheld their hands from it ; and the Jews being 
utterly vanquished and scattered, all civil relation between 
the two Jewish parties was utterly and for ever lost sight of. 



490 BLUNDEKS OF THEOLOGICAL WKITERS 



CHAPTER LXXVI. 

BLUNDERS OF THEOLOGICAL WRITERS RESPECTING THE 
DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM, AND SOME OF ITS CON- 
SEQUENCES. 

"We are told in the books so frequently that particular 
citations need scarcely be made, that in the famous war in 
which Jerusalem was destroyed — about A. D. 72 — ^the Jew- 
ish temple was utterly and for ever demolished, and the Jew- 
ish State and commonwealth then and there found an end 
for ever ; and that by this disaster the Jews were finally dis- 
persed into all countries, and became a strolling people. 
The inferences, deductions, and conclusions drawn from 
these historic blunders, in support of a mythical Chris- 
tianity unknown to Scripture, are, to say the least, very 
numerous, as well as abundantly injurious to the Church. 

It seems to me that these historic data, which we read so 
readily almost everywhere, are subject to serious criticism. 
It is not true, in the first place, that the famous temple at 
Jerusalem was, in the period alluded to, in any proper sense, 
the Jewish temple. Secondly, its destruction, with that of 
the city, was not the end or termination of the Jewish State 
and con^monwealth ; nor thirdly, was this famous siege the 
cause of the dispersion of the Jews. Indeed, the whole 
affair — war, results, and all — had no certain or necessary 
connection with the Jews. As a people wholly, they were 
not concerned in it. 



RESPECTING THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. 491 

First For many years before the birth of our Saviour, 
the Jewish Church and people had been divided into three 
denominations, as we would call them, or sects, or separate 
Churches. First. There was the Hebrew Jews, as they are 
generally called. These resided mostly in Judea, had the 
Hebrew text of the Bible, and their place of great festive 
worship at the temple in Jerusalem. Second. The Samari- 
tan Jews. These — those who had not migrated to other 
countries — lived in Samaria, and had their temple for festive 
worship on Mount Gerizim. They had the Scriptures in a 
Syriac dialect, in Phoenician characters. Third. The Hellen- 
istic Jews. These resided mostly in Egypt, and other for- 
eign countries, and had their temple at Heliopolis, in Egypt, 
and spoke the Greek language. It is among these several 
denominations that we find our several versions of the Old 
Testament — the Hebrew, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and 
the Greek Septuagint. 

Secondly. These several Jewish Churches, or denomina- 
tions, had little or no social or ecclesiastical intercourse. 
They generally unchurched each other, each contending 
that his Scripture version was the true one, and his temple 
the only true temple. Their several versions of Scripture, 
however, varied but little, except in ancient chronology, and 
except that the Samaritan Jew^s received, as fully inspired, 
only the writings of Moses. These several Churches or 
classes of Jews were sometimes at war, and sometimes at 
peace among themselves. Of their relative numerical 
strength we have no reliable information. It may, how- 
ever, be regarded as most probable, that the Hellenists were 
the most numerous of the three. 

Thirdly, Now, what had this war of Vespasian against 

^ Jerusalem, and the destruction of that temple, to do with the 

Samaritan and Hellenistic portions of the Jews ? Nothing 

whatever. We do not see that they had any concern in it. 



492 BLUNDERS OF THEOLOGICAL WRITERS 

Eome made no war upon them. Kome was not making 
war upon Jews ; it was only putting down a rebellion at 
Jerusalem. And surely the Samaritans or Hellenists would 
not have assisted, under any circumstances, in defending 
that city, or that temple ; neither were they " dispersed," nor 
otherwise affected by the fall of Jerusalem. The thing did 
not relate to Jews as such, but only to the revolt at Jeru- 
salem. 

Fourthly. As to the Jewdsh State and commonwealth 
coming to an end by the fall of Jerusalem, and the burn- 
ing of the temple there — how could that be ? The Jewish 
State had had no existence for about a hundred years before 
that time. Surely everybody knows that the Jewish civil 
government in Palestine found its " end " among the ances- 
tors of these people, and by other wars, long before this . 
time. No Jews then living had ever seen any civil State, 
among either the inhabitants of Judea or any other Jews. 

Fifthly, This justly famous and terrible destruction of 
Jerusalem w^as on this wise : About forty years after the 
death of Jesus, w^hen the separation between the believing 
Jews and the faction which revolted from Judaism and apos- 
tatized had become complete, wide, and fimil, the Judean 
portion of this faction — and which, so far as I know, consti- 
tuted the whole of it, or most likely nearly all of it — find- 
ing "the affairs of the Romans in great disorder" — as 
Josephus tells us — and being of a " seditious temper," de- 
termined to revolt against the government. They rebelled, 
and entrenched themselves in the city, and after a terrible 
siege, suffered a most terrible destruction. 

And now, to predicate this transaction of the Jews, and 
connect it with "the downfall of the Jewish State," and 
" the dispersion of this people," is not only a very great and 
very gross falsification of history, fashionably put forth by 
theological writers, but it throw^s a romantic and m^iihical 



RESPErniKO THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. 493 

air over the Church in those times, which certainly does not 
belong to it. 

These errors are supposed to be needful, in order to show 
us that in a certain period of the world God dispensed his 
grace to mankind according to some unknown, unintelligi- 
ble, and never-explained principles called Jewish; and in 
another period he changed his dispensation so as to let in 
other principles called Christian, And so to keep ujd the 
error, there must be an entire separation, and entire distinc- 
tion, between Jews and Christians, between God's dispensa- 
tion here and God's dispensation there. Christianity, in- 
stead of being the common religion of God, conformable to 
nature and the divine character, is a happy afterthought, 
'' introduced " by Christ after he assumed the humanity of 
Jesus ; and the Church, instead of being the rational and 
natural association of religious people, is a new-fangled 
thing, " instituted '' about the same time. 

Jews, and every thing Jewish, must be carefully and ex- 
actly classed away among the things of " the old system," 
and so the Jewish State must be made to succumb to the 
opposite principles of Christianity ; and the Jewish people 
must be universally dispersed^ in order that the new-comers 
— the Christians — may find a place and a Church in the 
earth. 

I venture to suggest the question whether the religion and 
the history of the Church ought any longer to be bribed 
and dragooned into this specious but unnatural support of 
this mystical and mythical " Christianity '' ? There is no 
such Christianity known to revelation. 



49 1 CONYBEARE AND HOWSON'S ST. PAUL, 



CHAPTER LXXVII 



STRICTURES ON CONYBEARE AND HOWSON's "ST. PATTL/* 



A FEW years since, the Eev. Messrs. Conybeare and How- 
son brought out in England a somewhat voluminous work 
with the above title. It is highly spoken of as superior to 
the commentaries, and as an excellent introduction to the 
New Testament ; but though it undoubtedly has consider- 
able merit in many things, it can scarcely be said to be 
entirely free from objection. 

I make a very few extracts and comments, for the purpose 
of showing the drift of theological thinking in one partic- 
ular channel. 

On page 31, of Vol. I., they say : "Christianity has been 
represented by some of the modern Jews as a mere school 
of Judaism. Instead of opposing it as a system antagonistic 
and subversive of the Mosaic religion, they speak of it as a 
phase or development of that religion itself, as simply one 
of the rich outgrowths from the fertile Jewish soil." 

Here we are at no loss for the clear meaning. " Judaism " 
and " the Mosaic religion " are, I think, very properly spoken 
of as synonymous — one and the same thing. And the com- 
plaint against these modern Jews is, that they claim that 
the Christianity they oppose is only " a phase or develop- 
ment of the Mosaic religion" — that is, the religion of the 
Old Testament. TV'hereas, the authors before us say they 



CONYBEARE AND HOWSON'S ST. PAUL. 495 

ought, to be fair, to oppose it " as a system antagonistic and 
subversive of the Mosaic religion." This is plain, at least. 
Christianity, then, is antagonistic to and subversive of the 
Old Testament. 

Subvert, Webster says, means to overthrow from the 
foundation — to overturn — to ruin utterly. 

The business of the New Testament then, is, to subvert — 
to overthrow from the foundation — to ruin utterly — the 
religion of the Old Testament; or at least to "antagonize" 
it, and unceasingly endeavor to ruin it ! 

And this is printed in handsome octavo, circulated in 
England, republished in this country, and called theology, 
and its authors are called doctors of divinity ! 

Well, I don't understand it. The thing, as printed, holds 
that the Old Testament ought to be destroyed — ruined 
utterly. Language could hardly be plainer than they have 
written it. And yet I can hardly believe the authors so in- 
tended. They have been so accustomed to reading that the 
New Testament and the Old were different and opposing 
systems of religion, that they probably never stopped to 
think about it. 

On page 79, they say : " The Jews attempted to destroy 
the gospel." AVhereas, the notorious truth is, that the Jews 
built up, at the first, and for about ten or twelve years sus- 
tained, solely and exclusively, this very thing he calls the 
gospel. He calls religion, as preached by the apostles, the 
gospel. I ask, if up to the time of the preaching to Cor- 
nelius, there was a man, woman, or child in the apostolic 
Church other than such as were rated and commonly called 
Jews — such as the authors themselves call Jews? Was 
there a Gentile in it ? 

On page 105, speaking of Paul, they say: "In his last 
residence at Tarsus, a few years before, he was a Jew, and 
not only a Jew, but a Pharisee." 



496 CONYBEARE AND HOWSON'S ST. PAUL. 

And did he, or how could he, cease to be a Jew ? Most 
assuredly he was born and died a Jew, and he was also a 
Pharisee from early life. Not long before his death — to set 
this question at rest, if it needs being put to rest — we hear 
him expressly and in terms claim to be both a Jew and a 
Pharisee ; and he had then been preaching the gospel more 
than twenty-five years. 

On page 188, the authors speak of "the rabbinical 
master of the synagogue " as being, of course, an inveterate 
and unceasing enemy of Christians. 

How do they know that whole synagogues, hundreds of 
them, with their " rabbinical masters " at their head, were 
not among the first and foremost followers of Christ? It 
would be strange indeed if it were not so. All the Chris- 
tians were Jews up to a time when they must have amounted 
to hundreds of thousands, if not to millions. For a long 
time they, and they alone, were the friends ,and followers of 
Christ. The Saviour was a Rabbi ; but whether he filled the 
office of Ruler in the synagogue, we are not informed. But 
we are repeatedly informed that he frequently — both he and 
the apostles — served in other regular offices of the syna- 
gogue. They frequently did so all their lives. Surely every- 
body knows this. They were certainly " rabbinical " officers 
of the synagogue, and so acted on very many occasions. 

On page 206, the authors think it must have been impos- 
sible in those days to conceive " how the Jews and Gentiles 
could have ever become united in one Church without the 
enforced obligation of the whole Mosaic law." 

I answer, that " the obligation of the whole Mosaic law " 
was enforced — always was, and is now ; or if not, then I in- 
quire which books, which chapters, which paragraphs of it 
are repudiated ? 

This brings out the gist of this main blunder about the 
Mosaic law. The thing was grossly misunderstood by some 



CONYBEARE AND HOWSON'S ST. PAUL. 497 

then, and is, it seems, as much misunderstood by some now. 
And yet, looked at properly, the whole matter appears very 
simple. To take a telescope to look at a thing just before 
you, is a great disadvantage. 

Everybody knows that before the personal coming and 
visible sacrifice of our Saviour, several of the ceremonies 
of the Church were typical, forereaching, adumbrant of that 
event. In their symbolical mode of teaching religious truth, 
they pointed forward as we point backward to the visible 
sacrifice. This has been fully explained in former chapters. 
IsTo matter just now how many or how few there were of this 
sort of Church ceremonies. It is certain that circumcision 
— that is, the mode of administering this sacrament — was 
one of them, and there were others. 

Now, what was the rule of the Old Testament — the Mosaic 
law, or the Jewish religion, whichever expression any one 
may prefer — what was the rule respecting the continuance 
or discontinuance of these ceremonies after the coming of 
Christ ? or did the Old Testament prescribe absolutely on 
the subject ? 

Why, has it not just been said that they pointed forward 
to that event ? Then how could they continue beyond that 
event but by violating the law of Moses, or the Old Testa- 
ment? If the Jemsh Scriptures prescribed these ceremo- 
nies as symbols to point forward to adumbrate the then 
future coming of Christ, then that is the same as to say that 
they prescribed that they should cease on the coming of that 
event ; for they could no longer point forward to a thing 
that had happened. 

Then the use of circumcision after Christ was a violation 
of the Mosaic Scriptures most assuredly, and . not a con- 
formity to them, as many seem to suppose. 

Most assuredly, then, there was an obligation resting on 
all, then as now, to observe the Old Testament ; and the 



498 CONYBEARE AND HOWSON'S ST. PAUL. 

apostles and others did obey the Mosaic law by discontinuing 
circumcision and all other rights adumbrant of Christ^s 
death. Those who essayed to continue the adumbrant typi- 
cal rites, did so in open violation of the plain enactments 
of the Mosaic law on every page of it. 

The authors say : " Pharisaic Christians insisted that the 
observance of Judaism was necessary to salvation. They 
said it was absolutely needful to circumcise the new converts, 
and to command them to keep the law of Moses.'' That 
was impossible. Men could not at the same time do two 
things directly and palpably opposite and contradictory to 
each other. If they advised them to keep the law of Moses 
—as they call the Old Testament Scriptures — they advised 
them to discontinue circumcision. Most assuredly it was 
the same then as it is now. Suppose we now were to prac- 
tice circumcision and the other typical ceremonies? We 
discountenance them because every page of the Old and 
of the New Testament requires it. 

Those mistaken persons in the apostles' days, who misun- 
derstood their Scriptures, and desired to continue the obsolete 
rite, violated the rules of the Bible as much as we would to- 
day by doing the same things. Show me that St. Paul vio- 
lated the Scriptures — any part of them — in his teachings, 
and he shall no longer be a religious leader for me. The 
Old Testament confines circumcision absolutely to the ante- 
Messianic period. To understand them otherwise, would 
be to deprive them of meaning, and make their language 
ridiculous. 

On page 133, Vol. II., we read that " a portion of the 
Church had been Jews." And in many other places it is 
supposed that Christians could not be Jews. This, com- 
pared with the well-known history and the naturalness of 
the thing, is unintelligible. 

What did these men do? What act, moral, mental, or 



CONYBEARE AND HOWSON'S ST. PAUL. 499 

physical, did they perform, by which they ceased to be Jews 
and became Christians ? Can any man answer this question? 
They now, as Christians, beh'eve in Jesus Christ. Well, was 
not this always the religion of the Jewish Church ? Is there 
any religion in the Old Testament not wholly and essentially 
based on Christ? Is not Christ the center, foundation, 
substance, and sum total, of every religious thought, idea, 
and doctrine in the Old Testament as well as in the New ? 
And now, because they continue the same faith, they have 
ceased to be what they formerly were, and have become some- 
thing else. This needs explanation, and the explanation 
needs to be specific. I want to know" what faith they re- 
nounced ; and if that thing was taught between the lids of 
the Old Testament, then I want to expunge at least that 
much from my Bible. My religion is Christianity ; and I 
want no book nor teaching which even tolerates any other. 

"Will any man say that revelation ever ofiered salvation 
to anybody on any conditions other than faith in Christ? 
I see the sagest theologian and the child of six or seven 
years saved upon the same conditions of faith in Christ; 
though I discover a vast disparity in the knowledge of 
Christ, or about Christ, between them. And so I see men 
grown to years, in periods and countries of very dim twi- 
light, saved by w^hat might be called a very feeble faith. 
But I see no one saved on any legal terms. And I repeat, 
that any thing of this kind must be. expunged from the 
Christian Bible, because it is not true. 

And I also ask. When, where, and by whom was any thing 
in the Old Testament renounced by Christians? Can a 
Christian renounce revelation? Can revealed religion be 
untrue ? To renounce religion, is apostasy. To disbelieve 
revelation, is infidelity. 

I suppose I could point out fifty errors of this kind in the 
work under consideration, all flowing in the same channel. 



500 CONYBEARE AND HOWSON'S ST. PAUL. 

And thus it is that two divines of high literary character, 
after much labor and research, have produced two good- 
sized octavos on the life and WTitings of St. Paul, and the 
New Testament generally, and have nearly ruined it with 
the notion, interlaced all through it, of not only an essential 
difference, but a high antagonism between the Old and New 
Testaments. It being all Scripture, you might as w^ell sup- 
pose an antagonism or difference in religion between the 
Gospels of Matthew and Mark, or these and those chapters, 
verses, or books in the New Testament. All Scripture is 
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine ; 
and if I understand the matter aright, it is all binding on 
Christians now. But we cannot be governed by any writing 
until we first understand it. But if it be held that any 
part of the Old Testament is not binding upon Christians 
now, then I inquire w^hat portions are to be repudiated? 
And what are we doing with those portions in our Bible ? 



the'acts of the apostles. 501 



CHAPTER L XXVIII. 

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 

Much of the connected history of the Church we have 
in the Scriptures, is the treatise we call the Acts of the Apos- 
ties ; but it is by no means pretended that this is a complete 
history, or even an outline, of the acts of the apostles. Most 
of the apostles are scarcely mentioned at all in the treatise. 
It contains a considerable outline of the account of the acts 
of one of the apostles, viz., Paul ; and he, it will be remem- 
bered, was not one of the twelve. And we have some 
account of Peter, James, Barnabas, and others. 

And we have in Acts a pretty clear account of the great 
Jewish apostasy, in which a large portion of the Church 
abandoned their former religion. It is explained how they 
endeavored to hold fast to the true doctrines of Christ, and 
at the same time repudiate Jesus ; and how, in repudiating 
the one, they necessarily repudiated the other; and how 
they persisted in that bold heresy to at least their religious 
ruin. 

There is a very clear distinction between a belief of 
Christ and a belief in Jesus, We often confound the two 
things by using the word Christ as the name of the Son of 
God. It is not properly the name of the man, but rather 
of his office, or of his relation to mankind as our Saviour. 
The Old Testament is full of Christ, of the doctrine of 



602 SOME OBSERVATIONS ON 

Christ, the religion of Christ. There is no religion taught 
or hinted at in the Old Testament, as true, but that of 
Christ — that which is Christian. But the man Jesus had 
not yet been made manifest to human senses. And so in 
him, as such, there could be neither belief nor disbelief. 

Mr. Watson's misapprehension is therefore apparent Avhen 
he says, " The Christian religion was published by its great 
author in Judea, a short time before the death of Herod the 
Great." Most assuredly it w^as not the Christian religion 
which was then first published. This would repudiate the 
Old Testament, deny the truth of its religion, and set aside 
four-fifths of all Mr. Watson's theological teachings. The 
true religion, the Christianity of religion, or the religion 
which recognizes and teaches Christ as the Saviour of men, 
was taught, most assuredly, long before the time of Herod. 
The thing which was new at this time was, that the old re- 
ligion was now first taught, explained, and made more man- 
ifest, under the personal auspices and divine direction of 
Jesus as the Christ. 

The question whether the characteristics and religious 
fiinctions of Christ, as taught all over the Old Testament, 
pertained to, and were found and inhered in the man Jesus, 
could not. in the nature of things, arise until the period of 
the human life of Jesus. The Christian doctrines taught 
everywhere in both the Old and New Testaments now, 
indeed, assumed a new phase, and stood in a position they 
never could have appeared in before. The doctrines of re- 
ligion, as taught in the Old Testament, are not only true, 
and therefore are to be believed, but w^hen the Shiloh, the 
Christ in whom they all inhere, is made manifest, it then 
becomes necessary, in order to the continued maintenance 
of these doctrines, to recognize the personality of the Mes- 
siah thus appearing. 

This the apostatizing Jews refused to do ; and so Jesus 



THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 503 

bei7ig the Christ, they necessarily denied the one as well as 
the other. Since Jesus was the Son of God, in denying him 
as such, they denied the Son of God, and so repudiated 
their former faith. 

There never was any difference between Jews and Chris- 
tians in those days — any kind of Jews — on the abstract 
question of the Christianity of religion. Here all were 
agreed. None had ever been taught any religion but the 
Christian religion. The Christ — the Christ to come — was 
the center and foundation of all true religion, so understood 
on all hands. And now — for the first time it could arise — 
the question arose as to the relation of the man Jesus to 
their religion. Was he the Christ f 

The question which arose at this time, and which so agi- 
tated and divided the Church, and gave rise to the apostasy 
of a large portion of it, was about Jesus^ not about Christ. 
This question arose and was agitated to some extent soon 
after Jesus was born ; and still more extensively — so far as 
we are informed — during two or three years just before he 
entered upon his public ministry ; and the question arose 
higher and higher, assuming more and more importance, 
until it rent the Church asunder, and the great Jewish apos- 
tasy became established. 

The book of Acts gives some very interesting history 
respecting this dispute, and the final withdrawal from the 
Church of the apostate Jews. The absolute necessity of 
receiving Jesus as the Christ, has already been explained. 
It was as vital and necessary then as now, and no more so. 

The influences brought to bear on the more irreligious 
portion of the Jews, and which caused their denial of Jesus, 
are sufficiently explained in Acts, though they are fre- 
quently alluded to in other parts of Scripture ; and also the 
powerful manner in which the truth is urged in opposition 
thereto, is very fully set forth. The opposition to Jesus, it 



504 SOME OBSERVATIONS ON 

is explained, originated entirely, or almost entirely, with a 
few Church officials; but their influence with the masses 
enabled them to draw off with them finally a large portion 
of the people. 

It is at least an ambiguous mode of expression with many 
writers of high repute, to speak of the ^^ primitive Church," 
the " infant Church," etc., in those days. There was nothing 
really " primitive," nor " infantile," nor " early," nor juve- 
nile, about the Church in this period. According to any 
definitions that, in any proper sense, can be given to the term 
Church, it was at least fifteen hundred years old when Jesus 
Christ was born. 

To speak of an infant Church, or a primitive Church, in 
those days, supposes that the long-known historic Church 
ceased to exist, and that another and different Church was 
then formed; and that the Jews, and then other people, 
were invited into the new Church. But none of these sup- 
positions find the slightest support in the Acts of the 
Apostles. 

But on the contrary, the continued and uninterrupted 
existence of the Church, and the religion of the Church, 
are fully recognized and taught. The apostatizing Jews 
ivent out of the Church, just as apostasy w^ould necessarily 
take any one, or any number, out of the Church now\ The 
origin of the Church, natural and proper, is, I think, men- 
tioned in the latter clause of the twenty-sixth verse of the 
fourth chapter of Genesis. Since the things there stated, 
there has not ceased to be a Church in the true and most 
evangelical sense, and most certainly there never could be 
but one Church. 

There is an historic question of interest belonging to the 
time comprehended in this history, which is not specifically 
alluded to in Scripture, and v/hich cannot now be settled ; 
that is, the number, or comparative number, of the Jews 



THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 505 

who apostatized from their religion by denying Christ. It 
is certain the number was large, but in no sort of proportion 
so large as is generally taught by theological and ecclesias- 
tical writers. This point is elaborated in another chapter, 
and needs but an allusion here. 

A careful examination of all the places in Acts and else- 
where, where the opponents of Christ are spoken of — I say 
the opponents of Christ, for the opponents of Jesus were 
now necessarily the opponents of Christ — will show that 
the opposition is always predicated, not by any means of 
the Jewish people generally, nor of any very considerable or 
large number of Jews, but of the officials, or the Pharisees 
or Sadducees, of which there were but a few thousand in all 
Palestine, or of a few persons who chanced to be, at some 
particular time and place, the subject of local remark. 
The term, "the Jews," so frequently used in this connec- 
tion, most usually refers to some local occurrence, when but 
a few persons are evidently meant ; but when alluding to 
opposition to the Saviour, this expression is never under- 
stood to mean the Jewish people, either wholly or«generally. 
Many passages of the New Testament which some under- 
stand as placing the Jewish people, wholly or generally, in 
opposition to Jesus Christ, ought to be understood as re- 
ferring, not to the people, but to the official persons. The 
Jews are spoken of nationally^ or in a political or civil 
sense. A thing done by the Sanhedrim, or by the priests, 
or some of them, was said to be done by the Jews. 

Some understand the remark of Paul, in Acts xiii., " Lo, 
we turn to the Gentiles,'^ as signifying an abandonment, by 
the apostles, of the Jewish people, and that henceforth they 
would preach only to Gentiles. But such a construction is 
utterly erroneous. In the first place, at that very time the 
great apostolic Church, amounting to at least myriads, was 
almost wholly composed of Jews ; at least, the Jews in it 



506 SOME OBSERVATIONS ON 

then amounted to " myriads, or " many ten thousands," as 
previously explained. And secondly, it was a remark made 
only to a local congregation, at Antioch, away in the north- 
ern part of Syria, far beyond the borders of Palestine, and 
in reference merely to a few Jews who chanced to be there 
at Church on that occasion, and whose personal conduct 
Paul thus reproved. And it w^ould therefore be entirely 
gratuitous and unnatural to give the remark a wider appli- 
cation than to the Jews there present. 

And so in many other places, a mere local remark, in- 
tended to have only a local application, is made to mean 
very much more than was intended. 

Many persons, without noticing these things, consider the 
Jews an exceedingly fickle-minded people, when we now see 
them giving Jesus a grand public entree into their city, with 
the most wide-spread and highly popular demonstrations of 
approval, and recognition of him as the Emmanuel of their 
faith ; and in a few days thereafter crying, " Crucify him ! 
crucify him !" But in truth all these things do not imply 
any change of opinion at all. 

The former, though quite a large, and very popular, and 
public demonstration, was by no means the act of the Jews, 
but of, no doubt, several thousand Jews, out of their many 
millions — a considerable number, at least, of those then in 
the city of Jerusalem. The very brief historic synopsis we 
have, warrants the belief that the great body of those Jews 
then present joined in it. And of the latter — those who 
cried "crucify him" — the history gives not the least war- 
rant for believing that any of them were among those 
who joined in the public acclaim of welcome, nor indeed 
that they were more than a handful in number. It was 
physically impossible that more than a very few could have 
abetted in either the trial or the crucifixion. St. John says 
it was the " chief priests and officers" who cried "crucify 



THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 507 

him." The history plainly shows that the whole movement 
of trial and crucifixion was set on foot and prosecuted by 
the Sanhedrim and a handful of followers ; and that they 
urged it forward in great haste and in great secrecy, " for 
fear of the people." 

One great object of the book of Acts is to teach mankind 
the uninterrupted continuance of the Church through these 
days of ecclesiastical peril and agitation. It is shown that 
the gates of hell could not prevail against it ; that the open 
apostasy of probably a full half of the Church did not in 
the least affect its continued being. Through the early 
teachings of error and misconception, many may believe 
and write that the Church suffered dissolution, and that its 
faith was changed; that a better Church was "founded," 
and another religion was " instituted ;" but these things are 
errors still. 

The very learned and able Doctor Macknight, with his 
hundred copyists, may tell us that " it was natural in form- 
ing them (the Churches) to imitate the model and follow 
the rules of the synagogue." But this does not make it so. 
There is not, either in the New Testament or the reason of 
the thing, the remotest intimation respecting the " forming " 
of a Church or Churches, except the mere extension of the 
Church, as is seen everyw^here now. The apostles "imi- 
tated the model " and " followed the rules " of the syna- 
gogues in the same sense in which the Church to-day imi- 
tates the model and follows the rules of the Church of last 
year, with the single exception, as before explained, that 
after Christ's coming, some things naturally pertain to the 
Church which did not before. There was a simple contin- 
uance. 

,. The numerical extent of this great ecclesiastical revolt — 
by far the most important the Church ever suffered — we 
learn not from any express language in Acts, so much as 



508 SOME OBSERVATIONS ON 

from the scope of the treatise, or portions of it, but more 
especially from history outside the Scriptures. And it 
must be understood that this division of the Church did 
not take place in a day or a year — it was about a full age 
in the course of its completion. 

And it is strange indeed, surprisingly so, that this great 
and important revolt is not treated of, so far as I know, at 
least, as a revolt, apostasy, or a turning away from the 
Church at all. Indeed, I do not remember to have seen the 
movement specifically treated of or attempted to be philo- 
so]Dhically explained by any one. I have often seen the 
history glanced over very imperfectly, and left rather to be 
inferred that the Church, in some way, got away from these 
" Jews," and left them the unmolested constituency of the 
"Jewish Church," where they still remain. Thus the 
Church of God inhered, and still remains, in a body of 
people who renounce and deny all revealed religion ! A 
more strange jumble of blunders could scarcely be con- 
ceived of. 

It is not said that any theologians teach this expressly. 
It has been already said that I have not known of any phi- 
losophic teaching on the subject. But certainly it is a point 
of ecclesiastical service that deserves specific explanation. 

Many persons, from these partial and incorrect teachings, 
come to the conclusion that the Saviour and his apostles 
left the Church, or got out of it some way, and set up a new 
one, beginning with a handful of persons ; and that the 
Jews, all except " a few," w^ere the bitter opponents of this 
new Church ; and that modern Jews occupy the same status, 
in relation to revealed religion, as the Jewish Church before 
the Christian era. Probably the least remarkable feature 
in such unscriptural notions is, that they are wholly untrue. 

Indeed, no one can fail to see, if he will notice the state 
of things, and reflect a moment, that if the unbelieving 



THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 509 

Jews continued the old religion and the old Church, then it 
follows, of unavoidable necessity, that Christianity is apos- 
tasy. The one or the other certainly is. And there is but 
one mode possible by which to determine which party con- 
tinued the Church, and which apostatized from it, and that 
is by determining whether Jesus was or was not the Christ. 
Upon the whole, the complete identity of both the Church 
and its religion, before the time of Christ and afterward, 
is very plainly set forth in Acts. It is most clearly and 
satisfactorily shown that Christ was the very same teacher 
of the very same religion, the same principles and truths, 
in his human personality, as he was in all time past in his 
invisible and spiritual personality. He is without variable- 
ness, or even the shadow of turning. And religion being 
necessarily the same always, the supposition of two Churches 
and two religions is inconsistent, both with the account given 
in Scripture, and with the simple analogies in the case. 



510 STRICTURES 021 



CHAPTER LXXIX. 



STRICTURES ON PALEY's EVIDENCES. 



Paley's first and principal proposition is this : " There is 
satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be original 
witnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in 
labors, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone, in 
attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely 
in consequence of their belief of those accounts ; and that 
they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of 
conduct." 

First I hold that the mere belief of these men in the 
historic facts of those miracles was by no means the sole 
ground of the conduct attributed to them. 

It was an essential part of the religious faith of these and 
all other Jews that the Emmanuel, as described in the Pro- 
phets, would at some time arise amongst them. The mira- 
cles certainly composed, in their minds, a large portion of 
the testimony which made them believe that Jesus was the 
Emmanuel of prophecy. But this simple belief was by no 
means the sole cause, nor even the chief cause, of the relig- 
ious lives which followed. No man was ever known to lead 
a truly religious life, unless, in addition to the mere historic 
belief of miracles — which is merely intellectual— he had 
received a preternatural and spiritual communication from 



paley's evidences. 511 

God, through Jesus Christ, sensibly infusing the grace of 
God into his heart. 

Secondly, I object to the statement, "And that they also 
submitted from the same motives to new rules of conduct." 

It cannot^ be doubted that some of these witnesses of the 
miracles were pious persons, converted in the ordinary 
Christian sense, before these miracles were performed. Or 
at least, it is certain they might have been so converted, and 
were therefore already enjoying true religion. And hence, 
in regard to such persons, how can it be said that their 
mere belief in the miraculous facts caused them to submit 
to new rules of conduct ? 

When a man, in any age of the world, through any im- 
mediate agency or instrumentality, no matter what, becomes 
converted to true, divine religion — and surely there is but 
one religion — ^he immediately submits to new rules of con- 
duct. But a man in the course of a truly religious life can- 
not be said to submit to new rules of conduct by merely 
having his mind enlightened and his faith strengthened by 
belief in all the miracles said to have been performed by 
our Saviour. He merely grows in grace, as all truly con- 
verted and pious men do, in all ages of the world, with or 
without special reference to miracles. 

Hence it follows that such persons, alluded to by Paley, 
as may have been unconverted, and they only, submitted to 
new rules of conduct on being converted, whether that was 
before or after they became convinced of the verity of the 
miracles ; but this was most certainly not solely in conse- 
quence of that belief. The religion which causes a man to 
submit to new rules of conduct is certainly not the sole 
result of an historic belief in the truth of miracles — for, 
alas! there are too many thousands w^ho do thus believe, 
and " their belief of those accounts " does not produce the 
new rules of conduct. 



512 STRICTURES ON 

Ihirdly, In the production of proof on this subject, the 
author says : " Secondly, it is also highly probable, from the 
nature of the case, that the propagation of the new religion 
was attended with difficulty and danger." 

I ask, What "new religion"? There is not the least 
intimation in the New Testament that the Saviour or his 
followers introduced or practiced a new religion, either in 
whole or in part, or that they ever suggested or hinted at 
any thing of the sort. On the contrary, they followed, 
closely and exactly, in every particular, the religion of the 
then existing Scriptures — teaching and adhering to them 
just as they were and are now WTitten, as all true Chris- 
tians do now, and according to their true and proper 
meaning. 

In so doing, they discontinued the form of some Church 
ceremonies, as the Old Testament required, and because the 
Old Testament required it. These changes were, therefore, a 
plain and natural conformity to the Scripture teachings, and 
not a departure from them. The typical ceremonies must, 
of course, cease on the advent and death of the Messiah, 
because they were typical of that event. 

" New religion " is a very sweeping expression, and " the 
new religion" is still more definite and comprehensive. 
The meaning of the words cannot be mistaken. And I now 
ask the simple question. Is the revealed religion of the New 
Testament 7ieit', as compared with that of the Old, or is it 
different from it ? And then, if any man supposes it is, I 
ask him to point out one doctrine of religion or rule of 
ethics — much less a whole system of religion — in the New 
Testament that is not found in the Old. And his utter fail- 
ure will be to him the best proof of his error. 

Again : " This people, with or without reason, had worked 
themselves into the persuasion that some signal and greatly 
advantageous change was to be effected in the condition of 



paley's evidences. 513 

their country, by the agency of a long-promised messenger 
from heaven." 

We are well informed that many persons professing relig- 
ion in that day, entertained very erroneous views of the 
coming Saviour. This is not strange, since, in this day, with 
the life, manhood, work, and history of the Saviour before 
us, there are many whose views of him are nearly as erro- 
neous. But that " this people '' — meaning the entire Church 
at that time — entertained the belief above stated, is much 
more than can be proved ; nay, it is directly in the face of 
the plain Scripture history. For that there were, at that 
time, thousands, tens of thousands, or, in the express words 
of the history, "many," "multitudes," "myriads," or "many 
ten thousands " of Jews who entertained correct views of 
the Saviour, is beyond question. Indeed, everybody well 
knows that for about ten or twelve years after the crucifix- 
ion, until the preaching to Cornelius, the entire apostolic 
Church, apostles and all, were Jews of this character ; and 
I venture to add, that nobler, more intelligent, more pious 
and heroic Christians never lived, than were at least a 
goodly portion of these Jews. 

And farther, so far as religion was misunderstood, at that 
time or any other— so far as anybody mistook or misappre- 
hended the offices and true character of the Saviour — these 
errors are predicable, not of the Church, not of this people, 
in this sweeping language of the author before us, but of 
the individual persons, be they many or few, who enter- 
tained them. 

Again we are told : " The extending of the kingdom of 
God to those who did not conform to the law of Moses, was 
a notion that had never before entered into the thoughts of 
a Jew." 

Nor has it ever entered into the thoughts of a Christian who 
has right views of the Old Testament Scriptures in this re- 
17 



514 STRICTURES ON 

gard. For it is true, and is preached now by all the Chris- 
tian ministers I know of, everywhere, that the man who 
does not receive and conform to the law of Moses, can have 
no part in the kingdom of God. If by " the law of Moses " 
he does not mean the written religion of the Old Testament, 
then I know not what he does mean. Who allows a Chris- 
tian man to repudiate or depart from any part of the relig- 
ious laws of Moses and the prophets rightly understood ? 

Such ante-Messianic ceremonies and observances of the 
Church as pointed forivard to the coming of Christ — such 
as adumbrated his coming — are laid aside in conformity to 
the law of Moses, and not contrary to it. If not, then we 
now have, in our Christian Bible, conflicting and antago- 
nistic Scripture, which is palpably impossible. Moreover, 
as above, these particular ceremonies, being typical, cease 
by the law which creates them, when their antitype renders 
them no longer typical. And then, if the same things be 
afterward taught, they are taught by some other forms of 
external action. 

Again : " Even the enlightened Jew placed a great deal 
of stress upon the ceremonies of his law — saw in them a 
great deal of virtue and efficacy." 

Not so ! That statement must be denied flatly, because 
it is plainly and palpably untrue. The enlightened Jew un- 
derstood the Old Testament Scriptures as those Scriptures 
did, and do now, really teach. And everybody knows that 
the Old Testament places just as much stress on the cere- 
monies of religion as the New does, and no more. Our 
blessed Saviour was an enlightened Jew, and so were his 
apostles, and thousands of other evangelists, ministers, and 
holy men then in the Church. 

And again we are told : " The Christians avowed an un- 
qualified obedience to a new Master." 

Not so ! the very reverse of it. They avowed an unqual- 



paley's evidences. 615 

ified obedience to the Shiloh of their Scriptures, to the 
Christ of prophecy, the Emmanuel of their ancient faith, 
the Christ of the religion of their fathers. To say that 
Jesus was a new Christ — new to the Scriptures — is to say 
he was a false Christ. Who of them ever dreamed of their 
taking up a new master — new to their written religion? 
This was precisely the charge made against them then by 
the unbelieving Jews, and which they everywhere denied 
most stoutly and peremptorily. 

If Jesus was new to the Scriptures then, is he not equally, 
and for the same reason, new to the same Scriptures, and, 
consequently, false now ? 

And once more : " But during that time (the time of the 
apostles' preaching) a great deal of ill-usage might be en- 
dured by a set of friendless, unprotected travelers, telling 
men everywhere they came that the religion of their ances- 
tors, the religion in which they had been brought up, the 
religion of the State and of the magistrate, the rites which 
they frequented, the pomp which they admired, was, 
throughout, a system of folly and delusion." 

I copy that from Carter's University edition of Foley's 
Evidences, with notes by C. M. Nairne, 1856, p. 51 ; and I 
pause with surprise. I am unable to understand it in any 
way that will relieve it from the charge of being grossly 
libelous upon the Old Testament Scriptures, and perversive 
of the history of the ministry of the apostles. 

All the labors of all the apostles, and of all true minis- 
ters since, was intended to sustain, to teach, to enforce^ to 
make plain, and to enjoin upon all men, the written religion 
of the ancestors of those Jews, and of their State and their 
magistrate. And there is not one of the apostles and evan- 
gelists but would have suffered martyrdom before he would 
have pronounced his Scriptures "throughout" a system of 
folly and delusion. 



516 STRICTURES ON 

As to " the rites which they frequented," and " the pomp 
which they admired," so far as they properly pertained to 
"the religion of their ancestors," they, too, are fully sus- 
tained by the Christian minister, as they were intended to 
be understood in the Old Testament teachings. Such of 
them as were typical of that which had come to pass, were 
of course taught therein to be laid aside by them ; but not 
because there was any folly and delusion about them, but 
because they had answered their end in the mind of infinite 
wisdom. They are revelation. 

These portions of revelation are not only n©t " through' 
out a system of folly and delusion," but they are none of 
them a whit below infinite wisdom and adaptation; and 
that high impeachment of the divine economy and forecast, 
supposing it to mean what it says, looks to me to be 
criminal. 

It would be a strained hypercriticism, amounting to open 
violence upon the language of Paley, to apply the folly and 
delusion of which he speaks, to the mere errors of some 
Jews — many or few — in mistaking what the proper religion 
of the Church really was. Such errors existed at that time, as 
they do now ; and everybody knows full well that at and long 
before the coming of Christ they were very abundant. But 
to these errors Paley makes no allusion. He charges " the 
folly and delusion" not upon the ignorance, heresies, or 
mistaken views, of individual persons as to what the true 
religion of the Church was, when w^ell understood, but upon 
the veritable religion itself. He charges it home upon " the 
religion of their ancestors," the religion in which they all — 
not some of them — had been brought up — the religion of 
the State and of the magistrate. This, to mean any thing, 
must mean the written religion of the Old Testament Scrip- 
tures — the religion of the prophets and of the Church. 

And in another place in the same treatise — ^page 488 — 



paley's evidences. 617 

we are told that the Saviour " changed the religion of the 
world." Thus, and in many other places, it is assumed 
that prior to the time of the advent of the Saviour, all the 
religion of the world — that revealed from heaven, and that 
invented bj man — it is all classed alike — was a system of 
Jolly and delusion, 

I read in revealed theology of no such " Christianity " as 
Paley, in the arguments I have quoted, '^ proves " to be true. 
I may be told that Paley's work is a classic. In many 
respects it is. But it has a vein of error — a stream of un- 
truth, clear, deep, and with some considerable breadth of 
surface. I will not say, even of this, that it is a system of 
folly and delusion ; but I will say, I believe it to be grossly 
and palpably inconsistent with the divine teachings, and 
with all the reasonings and analogies of religion. Conflict 
between the Old and New Testaments would argue conflict 
in the Divine mind. We have but one revelation, one 
book, one religion, one Church, 



518 ■ GROUND OCCUPIED BY PALEY, 



CHAPTER LXXX. 

THE GENERAL GROUND OCCUPIED BY PALEY, WHICH HE 
CALLS CHRISTIANITY. 

On the newness of Christianity and its entire antagonism 
with the religion of the Old Testament, Paley is exceedingly 
plam and easily understood. Without one word of testi- 
mony, argument, or explanation, he assumes that, for some 
unknown reasons, the religion divinely enjoined upon man- 
kmd was exceedingly defective, and not only of no moral 
value, but was indeed greatly injurious to morals, and stood 
moreover, greatly in the way of true religion ; and that in 
order to mtroduce true religion, or "the gospel," this entire 
system of religion, which had been in vogue so long, had to 
be destroyed, and another entire system of religion placed 
in Its stead. He speaks of the "new faith"— "the new 
religion," etc., without the least intimation that a true relig- 
wn or a true faith had ever before existed in the world. 
But because the world had no religion but systems of "folly 
and delusion," Christ came into the world to establish-that 
IS, to origmate for the first time "a kingdom," or the king- 
dom of God, and so to introduce for the first time a true 
religion. He also frequently speaks of "our Scriptures" 
meamng the New Testament, in contradistinction to the 
Jewish Scriptures. 

Everybody knows, that in all the histor-^ of religion, 



WHICH HE CALLS CHRISTIANITY. 619 

every year and every day from Abel to the present time, 
there have been many persons who nominally professed the 
revealed religion, but who, from ignorance, prejudice, or a 
worse reason, have misconceived its true import and teach- 
ings in many things more or less important. With many, 
in all ages of the world, these errors have been fatal ; and it 
is well known that at the time of Christ such errors were very 
prevalent. They were no doubt much more common then 
than at the present day. Upon their true, religious faith, 
as set forth in their Scriptures, which they all acknowledged, 
they had foisted much superstitious doctrine, which from 
some cause, no one knows what, they called " tradition." So 
far as we know, however, these errors and additions to the 
proper faith of the Church, prevailed, or perhaps existed, 
mainly among two little philosophical or literary societies, 
or schools, called Pharisees and Sadducees, both of which 
made up but the merest handful of the Jewish people, and 
which were quite recent things at the time of Christ.^ 

But to these religious errors, whether much or little, or 
whether they affected a handful or a majority of the Church 
at that time, I do not remember that Dr. Paley makes any 
particular allusion; at least, he does not allude to them m 
connection with any of the extracts which I make from his 
book. It is not against these that his animadversions 
are leveled, but against "the ancient religion," against the 
religion of the "ancestors" of those people, against the 
religion of the Jewish "State" and of the "magistrate," 
which must mean the written religion ; and that, everybody 
knows, was the same then it is now. 

And Dr. Paley farther teaches that our Saviour, in order 

to set up the true religion, commanded and besought the 

people to abandon the then existing religion of the Church; 

■ that is, the Scriptures of the Old Testament. It was not to 

be modified or reformed, but was to be utterly abandoned, 



520 GROUND OCCUPIED BY PALEY, 

for it was " throughout a system of folly and delusion." But 
he could not prevail upon his people. They would not re- 
pudiate the revealed religion of Scripture, but clung tena- 
ciously to it, and he says they maintain it to this day. ISTever- 
theless, a few, the merest few, perhaps a dozen or twenty— 
though he does not state the number, they being pious 
persons— did abandon the Old Testament religion, and were 
" converted " to Christianity, the " new religion." And this 
"new religion"— the Saviour having "changed the religwn 
of the world"— is the Christianity which he "proves" to be 
true! 

I have stated the case fairly; and I presume that nothing 
more is necessary to show it, in these particulars, to be, at 
least, ridiculous. I may be told that Paky's Evidences is a 
classic. I have nothing to do with that. I am not debating 
about its reputation. I am only exposing its fallacies and 
glaring violations of revealed history in some few points, as 
such history is notoriously known to everbody. 

Dr. J. P. Durbin, in his Introduction to Mmondson's 
Short Sermons, states the character of the preaching of our 
Saviour very correctly, and in few words : 

" The objects of his discourses were, to bring back his 
countrymen to a right interpretation of their sacred books, 
to reform their worship and manners, and to fix their atten- 
tion on himself as the Messiah." 

That is precisely what was needed, and what was done. 
Such of them as had strayed from a right interpretation of 
the Scriptures were to be brought bach to their old religion. 
And this was perhaps then, as it is now, more or less the 
condition of all. I presume there is no man now living 
who needs not to be instructed in a right interpretation of 
the sacred Scriptures. And he was to reform their worship 
and manners— a thing much needed then, and much needed 
now; and no doubt, as a general thing in the Church, much 



WHICH HE CALLS CHRISTIANITY. 521 

more needed then than now. And he was to fix attention 
on the Messiah — ^vitally needful then, and vitally needful 
now. 

But here we have no more a " new religion " than a con- 
gregation, instructed and successfully exhorted in a sermon, 
abandons their religion and takes up a new one. 

Dr. Smith, of England — Elements of Divinity, p. 259 — 
also states correctly the religious doctrines and rules of 
morals which our Saviour taught : " It will not be necessary 
here to sketch in detail a summary of the doctrines taught 
by Jesus during his ministry. It will sufficiently indicate 
its scope to inform you that it was a spiritual expansion and 
development of those truths which had been previously 
communicated in the pages of the Old Testament.'' That 
is exactly right. Or, in fewer words, he taught, explained, 
and elaborated the Old Testament teachings. Most assur- 
edly he taught no " new faith '' — no " new religion." 

The Saviour, and the apostles after him, labored to teach 
the old, regular religion of the Church — not to destroy it ; 
to inculcate it — not to abandon it ; to fix it solidly in the 
hearts of the people — not to repudiate it. It is marvelous 
that Dr. Paley should have fallen into such grave errors, 
and unfortunate that he had talent enabling him to state 
them in such a way as to cause hundreds to copy and thou- 
sands to believe them. 



622 CLARKE'S COMMENTARY 



CHAPTER LXXXI. 

NOTICE OF A FEW POINTS IN CLARKE's COMMENTARY ON 
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 

In his Preface to the Acts, Dr. Clarke holds the follow- 
ing strange and unaccountable language in speaking of the 
change of religion which he says took place at the time of 
Christ: 

" The change is not a change of merely one religious sen- 
timent or mode of worship for another, but a change of 
tempers, passions, prospects, and moral conduct All before 
was earthly, or animal, or devilish, or all three together. But 
now all is holy, spiritual, and divined 

Perhaps I might again remind the reader that in quoting 
from another I am careful to italicize as he does ; otherwise 
the quotation would not be exactly correct. And now, I 
ask, can any man understand the above quotation so as to 
relieve it from the charge of open violation of the truth of 
sacred history ? I will not apply that accusation to it ; and 
then I can only say, I do not know what it means. It cer- 
tainly means nothing that is true that I can understand. 
It has been abundantly proven hereinbefore, in many places 
and in many forms of argument, that no change in religion 
whatever took place in the Church at the time of Christ ; and 
as to the unqualified declaration — for it is unqualified, either 
in the context or otherwise — ^that all religion before this 



ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 523 

time was ^' earthly y or anwial, or devilish, or all three to- 
gether/' is — ^I know of nothing else to say — it is notoriously 
untrue. 

On Acts ii. 23, we read : " It was the Jews, therefore, 
who caused our Lord to be crucified by the hands of the 
heathen Komans." The same charge substantially may be 
read in many other places. 

Whether intended or not, in ninety-nine cases in a hun- 
dred, the reader understands the words, "the Jews," to 
mean the whole Jewish people, or at least the great body of 
them ; whereas, there is neither testimony nor remote prob- 
ability that more than a few hundred at most, out of the 
vast millions that made up the Jews, w^ho had any thing to 
do with the crucifixion, or even knew, or could have known, 
any thing about the death of Christ, or the proceedings 
leading to it, until afterward. 

Indeed, properly speaking, it was neither Jews, nor the 
Jeivs, who opposed Christ. It was false Jews ; such as " say 
they are Jews and are not, but do lie." Wickliff*, on John 
v., in the edition of the Presbyterian Board, p. 227, states 
the case correctly: "This gospel tells how false Jews ac- 
cused Christ of blasphemy," etc. That is the proper state 
of the case — false Jews. True Jews — those who were prop- 
erly Jews — ^were after a short time called Christians. 

In speaking of the three thousand who openly avowed 
Jesus as Christ on the day of Pentecost, we read that they 
" went over from one party to another. ^^ 

No ; they did not go over, nor go at all. They remained 
firm in the religion of the Old Testament Scriptures, but 
no doubt all of them understanding their Scriptures better 
then than they did before. They stood firm by the Old Testa- 
ment,just as we do noiu — -just as Dr. Clarke teaches we must. 

He assumes also that the three thousand were converted 
on that day. But of this we have neither testimony nor 



624 CLARKE'S COMMENTARY 

probability, that I know of. Indeed, it would be marvel- 
ous, if not morally impossible, to suppose that that could be 
true. We cannot presume that these three thousand persons 
were all unconverted at and before this time — they were 
almost the very first to openly avow Christ ; and who can 
suppose — especially without one word of testimony — ^that 
none of them were previously pious? No doubt many of 
them were then converted, but there can be no reasonable 
doubt but many of them were converted years before this. 
We would look there for pious people if anywhere. 

Moreover, I do not know — for the history does not seem 
to state with certainty — the number of persons who on that 
occasion openly avowed their adherence to Christ. The 
language is, "Then they that gladly received his word 
were baptized." And then, as a distinct declaration, it is 
said, "And the same day there were added unto them about 
three thousand souls." Now, were the three thousand made 
up in part of those who gladly received the preaching, or 
of others exclusive of them ? 

The reading will very naturally bear this construction, 
that first, the warm and ready friends of Christ and the 
apostles, mostly pious — and very likely there may have 
been thousands of such persons present — openly avowed 
themselves for Jesus as Christ, and were baptized into this 
belief And then, secondly, three thousand more, not at 
first so ready, were, in the course of the day, " added unto 
them." On this point the language is not clear ; but I do 
not see but the open, avowed believers in Jesus may not 
then have amounted to ten thousand or more. I think the 
history does not inform us on this point. 

At the close of the ninth chapter the Doctor tells us that 
" the ofier of salvation " was made to " the Israelitish peo- 
ple," and that "they utterly rejected it." Utterly means 
to the full extent, fully, perfectly, totally, — Webster. 



ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 525 

Now, in the face of this declaration, I state that on the 
day of Pentecost three thousand Israelites at least sol- 
emnly received the offered salvation ; and that afterward 
"multitudes," "multitudes," "multitudes" — often spoken 
of — did the same thing. And that afterward — mostly in 
other parts of the country, as reported hy Paul — "myri- 
ads," or many " ten thousands," did the same thing. And 
that for the space of about ten or twelve years the entire 
apostolic Church — amounting, may be, to millions — was 
made up of these same people exclusively. These facts are 
notorious, and known to everybody. Dr. Clarke's state- 
ment is unaccountable; it is openly opposed to all the 
history. 

On Acts xxi. 21, the Doctor says : " The Jewish econ- 
omy was not yet destroyed ; nor had God as yet signified 
that the whole of its observances were done away " — sig- 
nifying clearly, both in this language and the context, 
that " the Jewish economy " was soon after destroyed, and 
that " the whole of its observances were done away." 

By the Jewish economy I believe is always understood the 
system of morals, religion, and worship set forth in the Old 
Testament. At, and for a short time before, the time of 
Christ, there had arisen among the Jews three little ^^philo- 
sophical sects /^ as Josephus calls the Pharisees, Sadducees, and 
Essenes. They were not religious sects, but sects, or schools, 
or societies in philosophy and literature. They were very few 
in number, and had very recently sprung up. Because — 
chiefly — of their learning and influence, they, or rather two 
of them, are frequently spoken of in the New Testament. 
They had imbibed some very foolish errors in religion, as 
many do now, which w^ere frequently and severely repre- 
hended by the Saviour and his apostles. 

Now, I suppose it could not for a moment be pretended 
that Dr. Clarke could call these new-fangled notions and 



526 Clarke's commentary 

follies " the Jewish economy ^ That would be as erroneous as 
it would be now to call the follies of a little handful of Uni- 
versalists, for instance, the Christian economy. The word 
economy, in the sense here used, means " a system of rules, 
regulations, rites, and ceremonies ; as the Jewish economy, ^^ 
— Webster. These rules and regulations must, therefore, 
be written, or they could not form a " system." 

Neither could any peculiar local habits, customs, usages, 
or observances, which might have been general among the 
Jewish people at that or any other particular time, be 
spoken of as the Jewish economy. This language must 
always mean the written economy. 

Now, no man knows better, nor teaches more clearly, than 
Dr. Clarke, that that economy, just as it is written and prop- 
erly understood, makes up part and parcel of the Christian 
economy this day. ^^ Destroy ed,^^ indeed ! Who protects it 
from destruction, or even invasion, more boldly and more 
ably than Dr. Clarke? And yet he says it was destroyed! 

And as to the whole of its observances being done away, 
who does not know that many of them, just about as they 
were seen then, are seen now, every Sabbath-day, in every 
church in all the land ? As before explained, those observ- 
ances, and those only, which pointed forward to the divine 
advent, ceased at that time, not however by any means 
because they belonged to some particular economy, or some 
particular dispensation, but because their form and nature 
required, from the first, their discontinuance at that time. 
Their discontinuance was a paH of the Jewish economy, taught 
and prmnded for in it, and required by its laws. 

These strictures upon Dr. Clarke's Commentaries on the 
Acts could be pursued much farther, if necessary ; and also 
the same thoughts and expositions could be drawn from 
many other portions of his Commentaries. Enough has 
been said, however, to show that one of the first commenta- 



ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 527 

tors of his or any other age, by suffering himself to be 
drawn unconsciously into the false and pernicious doctrine 
of two different and opposing " dispensations,^^ and so two 
different and opposing Churches, and so two different and 
opposing religions, has run himself into some of the wildest 
extravagances and boldest contradictions and absurdities 
that can well be conceived of. 



628 BISHOP wightman's 



CHAPTER LXXXII. 

BISHOP WIGHTMAN's MINISTERIAL ABILITY. 

" The term New Testament sets the gospel dispensation in 
contradistinction to the law, which was the Old Testament. 
Both proceeded from God, the Author and Revealer of true 
religion. The first was but a preparatory dispensation, lead- 
ing the way to the second, revealed in the fullness of times, 
at the advent of Jesus Christ. It answered its temporary 
purpose, and, with its ceremonial service, it grew old and 
vanished away, as the light of the stars fades and is lost on 
the rising of the sun. 

" The New Covenant embraces an office of ministration. 
"What that office comprehends may be readily determined 
from the nature and design of the gospel dispensation. 

" The ministers of the New Testament are not a priesthood. 
They have no sacrifice to ofier up. They wait around no 
altar with sacrificial rites. They serve in no temple made 
awful by the presence of bleeding victims, and mediatorial 
offices for the rest of men. Nor are they a sacerdotal caste, 
tracing up their connection with some priestly fountain, by 
genealogical descent. The gospel knows of but one Priest, 
the great High-priest of our profession — of but one sacri- 
fice, the offering of Christ ' once for all ' — of no altar but 
the cross — of no temple by eminence, and built by human 



MINISTERIAL ABILITY. 529 

hands : its temples are the hearts of holy men, dwelt in by 
the Holy Spirit. 

" The central fact of the New Testament revelation being 
redemption by the sacrifice of Christ, and in that fact there 
being a distinct manifestation of God's method of showing 
mercy to a fallen world — pardon and renewing grace being 
thus offered to all who believe — it follows that a ministry is 
necessary to proclaim the ' glad tidings/ In order that the 
world may hear and believe, obviously there must be preach- 
ers. And the specialty of their office consists in this very 
thing : they are preachers, that they may deliver a spoken, 
clear, emphatic, living testimony, before the face of all men. 
Such an office and function enters as a necessary element 
into the constitutional scheme and grand design of the New 
Covenant Without it, the gospel makes no progress in the 
world; and Christianity, in its practical influence on man- 
kind, varies much according to the character, zeal, devotion, 
and intelligence of its preachers. 

" This being so, we may observe that God has not left to 
the chances of human things the origination and perpetu- 
ation of this ministry. At first, the primitive preachers 
were called directly by Christ in person. Since his ascen- 
sion, it is the office of the Holy Spirit to move men inwardly 
to take upon them this ministration. A divine call is 
necessary to the authority of the ministry." 

The above are some of the introductory observations to g, 
widely circulated sermon of the Kev. Bishop Wightman. 

He would neither expect nor allow me to give to his 
remarks any high-strained or hypercritical meaning, but 
would have them understood according to their plain, ob- 
vious import, and as they are understood by the thousands 
who read them. Those who know^ the Bishop need not be 
told that he is a master of language, and, always selecting 
th^ very word he wants, makes it perform precisely the 



530 BISHOP wightman's 

agency in the conveyance of the idea he intends. Like a 
scholar, he italicizes but little; but when he does so, it is to 
the purpose. 

" The term New Testament sets the gospel dispensation in 
contradistinction to the law, which was the Old Testament." 

He tells us here precisely what he means by " the law." 
He means, as every one would understand, " the Old Testa- 
ment." The Old Testament and the New, then, are in con- 
tradistindmi to each other ; that is to say, they are not 
only different, as a treatise on Geography and one on Astro- 
nomy are different, but they are contrary — in opposition to 
each other. And he tells us farther, that they " both pro- 
ceeded from God." 

This looks to me to be impossible. How can any two 
things coming from God stand contra to each other ? 

The Old Testament is a revelation of a system of relig- 
ion ; and the book contains nothing else, except some history 
of the times, persons, and mode of making the revelation, 
some logical illustrations and enforcement of the religion 
revealed, with the rules of ethics so set forth. 

And the New Testament is also a revelation of a system 
of religion ; and the book contains nothing else except some 
history of the times, persons, and mode of making the reve- 
lation, some logical illustrations and enforcement of the 
religion revealed, with the rules of ethics so set forth. 
^ The opposition between these Testaments cannot be in the 
history, in the nature of the thing. Nor can it be in the 
logical teachings or enforcement of the religion or the 
ethics ; because, being inspired, they could not teach in 
opposition to each other. 

The contradistinction, then, if it exist at all, must be in 
the doctrines of religion or the rules of ethics contained in 
the two Testaments respee^tively. 

And to this I reply, that, as a mere matter of historic 



MINISTERIAL ABILITY. 531 

fact, this is not the case. As I have several times done before, 
I again repeat, that there is not a doctrine of religion nor 
rule of ethics — no, not one — in the New Testament which is 
not in the Old, nor one in the Old not in the New. Let one 
be produced. 

There is a distinction in many things between the Old 
Testament and the New, as there is also between the differ- 
ent parts of each. The history is different ; the modes and 
means of teaching religion are, in many things, times, and 
places, different. But how can there be co?i^radistinction 
between any two parts of God's word ? 

And in regard to religious doctrines and moral rules, it is 
impossible there can he either distinction or contradistinction. 
The character of God being fixed and unchangeable, and 
the constitution of man remaining the same, this, as a logi- 
cal consequence, is inevitable. 

The first was a " preparatory dispensation," we are told. 
Most assuredly it was, just as any period is preparatory to 
the one that follows. The system of education practiced in 
the Bishop's youthful days was preparatory to that which he 
lately conducted so much more advantageously. The for- 
mer " leads the way to the latter." And the old " vanished 
away," just as all periods vanish away. And if the period 
of the Church prior to any given date " answered its tempo- 
rary purpose," it is in this respect like all other periods 
which precede a following one. This is the only sense in 
which there was a preparatory dispensation. 

" The New Covenant embraces an office of ministration." 
Certainly it does ; and so does the old. Will any man say 
it does not ? Will any man say there was not, in Old Testa- 
ment times, a proper ministry of the religion written, and 
that in the book this service or ministry of religion was 
not distinct from what is called the priesthood ? Have we 
not now, in the Old Testament, very much of such minister- 



532 BISHOP wightman's 

ing of religion ? "Were not the old prophets ministers of 
religion ? And were there not thousands of others ? Were 
there not in the city of Jerusalem alone, in the days of Christ, 
several hundred houses of worship where the people met 
regularly on Sabbath, and where religion was ministered to 
all who would come? No man will for a moment say 
that the popular ministry of religion was chronologically 
new with the apostles. That the Old Testament " embraces 
an office of ministration," is as certain as that it is a printed 
book. 

" The ministers of the New Testament are not a priest- 
hood." Neither were those of the Old — understanding the 
term, priesthood, in the sense here meant. In both cases 
they — the teachers of religion, whether priests or not — are 
put forth as mere men, representing, showing, pointing to, 
teaching of, the great High-priest of our profession. 

This subject has been previously examined, and the reader 
need only be reminded here that the Church-officers called 
priests, in the Old Testament, are nowhere by any means 
represented in Scripture as real priests atoning for sin. The 
very opposite is distinctly taught. But, living as they did, 
before the visible manifestation of the atonement by Christ, 
in teaching that atonement — the same atonement we teach 
now — they must needs teach it by jore-representing it. It 
could not be taught as we now teach it. 

Let me set this matter at rest, by inquiring of any man 
if the Old Testament either teaches or tolerates some other 
or different atonement for human sin than the one atone- 
ment of Jesus Christ, the Son of Mary ? Is or is not Jesus 
Christ the one and only foundation, center, corner-stone, sum 
and substance, of all the religion taught in the Old Testa- 
ment ? 

The priests of the Old Testament are never represented 
as atoning for sin. They taught of — about the true and 



MINISTERIAL ABILITY. 638 

proper atonement. They taught the doctrine of atonement. 
How did they do this ? By showing that Jesus suffered and 
died on the cross for sinners ? No ; this could not be done 
in the period when they lived. The doctrine could not be 
taught in that way, and so it must needs be taught in some 
other. The way they did it, and the only way I can conceive 
of in which it could be done at that time, to illiterate people 
especially, was by acting it, by going solemnly through the 
forms of apparent atonement. They represented atonement 
to the eyes of the people. They were called priests because 
they acted in the stead of the Priest. 

Micah seems to have understood it. Hear him : " Where- 
with shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before 
the high God ? Shall I come before him with burnt-offer- 
ings, with calves of a year old ? Will the Lord be pleased 
with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of 
oil ? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression ? the 
fruit of my body for the sin of my soul ? " 

The Psalmist understood it : " Sacrifice and offering thou 
didst not desire : mine ears hast thou opened. Burnt-offer- 
ing and sin-offering hast thou not required." 

And so all the prophets and all Old Testament writers 
understood it. Quotations could be multiplied. This is 
the way the Old Testament does teach it. 

" The gospel knows but one Priest." By gospel the Bishop 
means the New Testament. And does the Old Testament 
know more than one Priest ? I refer to Isaiah in mor^ than 
fifty places, and to every other prophet, for an answer. 

Would the Bishop himself suffer the Old Testament to 
remain in his house if it in the slightest degree, or in any 
manner or form, ignored Christ as the only true- Priest — the 
.only atoning sacrifice ? 

Mr. Watson very properly says : " The high-priest was a 
living representative of the great * High-priest of our pro- 

\ 



534 BISHOP wightman's 

fession/ And the Levitical sacrifices plainly had respect to 
the one great sacrifice for sins/' That is, these two things 
were used to represent, to teach the same things, and truths, 
and doctrines, which we represent now in a difierent mode. 

" The central fact of the New Testament revelation being 
redemption by the sacrifice of Christ." 

Just so. Since the actual, visible sacrifice, it is taught as 
a fact ; before, it could be taught only as a truth. Our own 
death and resurrection is now taught only as a truth ; at a 
future time it will become fact. And so the same doctrine 
is now as readily taught from the Old Testament as from 
the New. 

" In order that the world may hear, obviously there must 
be preachers." 

Most assuredly ; but this is not a peculiarity of any period 
of the Church. It was always the case — as well before as 
since the time of Christ. 

**At the first, the primitive preachers were called directly 
by Christ in person." 

Neither is this a peculiarity of any period of the Church 
— it was always so. There is not an intimation in Scripture, 
that I know of, from the earliest period, that any persons 
came to be preachers in any other way than by direct divine 
designation. 

"A divine call is necessary to the authority of a minister." 

Certainly this is the case, but it was always the case. It 
is not a peculiarity of any period. 

The Bishop is drawing a contrast between the New Testa- 
ment, which he says represents " the gospel dispensation," 
and the Old, which he says represents " a preparatory dis- 
pensation;" and the "contradistinction" between the two 
is shown to us in the items quoted above. But on looking 
at the items, it is apparent there is no contradistinction what- 
ever. He has utterly failed to show us any thing in the 



MINISTERIAL ABILITY. ^35 

New Testament, in the construction or constitution of the 
ministry, which is even strikingly different, much less in 
contrast, with that in the Church before. The particular 
functions of the ministry since the time of Christ, as he cites 
them, are by no means peculiar to that period, but are 
plainly common to the ministry generally. 

He says the Old Testament was the law, and the Nev/ is 
the gospel. But most assuredly this distinction will not 
bear the test of a moment's examination, however fashiona- 
ble the expression may be. There is perhaps no word com- 
monly used in religious literature with so many different 
senses as law. But in this place its sense cannot well be 
mistaken. It means that plan, or system of divine govern- 
ment, which stands before, and in contradistinction to, the 
dispensation of salvation, which we call gospel. But to pred- 
icate the former of the Old Testament Scriptures, and the 
latter of the New, is one of the manifest errors of the day. 
These two systems of administration stand related, by no 
means, in the order of time, but in the order of sequence. 
The gospel — i. e,, the system of saving men by and through 
Christ, as they are sometimes saved now — was introduced at 
the first. Were men not saved by Christ, in and accord- 
ing to the gospel, thousands of years before Christ's mani- 
festation of himself in the flesh ? 

The law is a system of absolute obedience: do those 
things and live by them. And the gospel is the vicarious 
interpretation of a Saviour — a daysman betwixt God . and 
us. And most assuredly both these things are in the Old 
as well as in the New Testament. 

It seems to me, therefore, a manifest error to say that the 
New Testament sets the gospel dispensation in contradistinc- 
tion to the law, which was the Old Testament. 



53G JUDAISM CONSIDERED, 



CHAPTER LXXXIII. 

JUDAISM CONSIDERED, NOT AS THE ANTAGONIST OF CHRIS- 
TIANITY, BUT AS A RELIGIOUS SYSTEM DIFFERING THERE- 
FROM, AND TERMINATING WHEN CHRISTIANITY BEGAN. 

The religion of the Old Testament is frequently spoken 
of, not as the antagonist of Christianity — not as some- 
thing positively wrong, or false, but as something introduc- 
tory to the true religion — a temporary system, intended not 
for mankind, but for a special people, a single nation. 
Hence they say it was a shadow of good things to come ; 
it was a bud, and Christianity is the fruit. And so in full 
time it vanished away, and the complete system was 
ordained. The first, it is said, consisted in forms and 
ceremonies — was legal only — and gave way when the 
atonement was made for a religion of faith in Christ. 
This first, or temporary religion, was legal only, we are 
told, in the sense that it enjoined only the doing of certain 
external things, whereas Christianity requires the believing 
of certain revealed truths ; and the old having answered 
its temporary purpose, is laid aside to give place to the new 
and the better. 

This is, as nearly as I can state it in few words, the view 
of many theologians ; and I think it is utterly untenable, 
and incapable of bearing the touch of sober examination. 
Let us see. 



AS DIFFERINa FROM CHRISTIANITY. 637 

First I can see that a spelling-hooh, for instance, is a 
useful instrument in education. It is used a while, and 
then laid aside finally, because no longer useful. I have 
not read one for the sake of instruction for many years. 
It is true it is not the enemy of the books I do read, but 
with me its particular lessons have waxed old, its didactic 
teachings have vanished away; no man keeps it in his 
library; no man refers to its lessons to elucidate ques- 
tions in science, nor even for the improvement of general 
literature. 

But is this the relation of the Old Testament to the 
system of revealed religion? Will any man say it is? 
And if it is, then what have we to do with it ? It is then 
no longer a useful part of our Scriptures. Why read it ? 
What care we about it ? If it has vanished away, let it go. 
If superseded, let it be superseded. Then it is not gospel, 
though it may once have been, or may have served the 
same purpose. Why attempt to elucidate its text in incul- 
cating religion ? 

Secondly, It may be said it is not all of it thus useless, 
but only parts of it. Then, I ask, what parts? Which 
books? which chapters? which verses, or paragraphs? 
This is all important to be known, in order that we may 
know w^hich portions to exclude from our practical lessons 
in religion. No one that I know of has pointed out these 
obsolete portions which have thus vanished aw^ay. 

And then another difiiculty is — one of many — that an 
inspired writer has told us that all the Old Testament, 
every word of it, is now for us profitable for doctrine, for the 
correction of our religious faith, for our growth and per- 
fection in religion. Then it will not do to exclude the 
whole, neither will it do to exclude a part. And not only 
will it not do, but it does not do. Nobody does it ; nobody 
allows it to be done^ 



588 JUDAISM CONSIDERED, 

Thirdly. But is it true, as mere matter of historic fact, 
that the Old Testament writers confine their teachings 
to the mere primary and elementary principles of religion ? 
Are the lessons taught merely preparatory, introductory, 
precursory? That is a plain question, and is susceptible 
of a plain answer. 

On the contrary, everybody know^s that human genius, 
inspired or uninspired, has not produced upon the page 
either of literature, of moral science, or of theologic truth, 
the equal — I will not say the superior — of those transcend- 
ently sublime and holy authors. Their eloquence, for 
pathos and sublimity, is yet unrivaled. Their logical 
profundity and deep soundings into the inner labyrinths 
of thought — were it not for the Apostle Paul — I would say, 
had never been reached in logical composition. Where is 
any thing in human literature equal to the sublime pathos 
and moving appeal of Judah's speech before Joseph? 
Where is any thing calculated to stir more deeply, or 
picture more forcibly, the inner and profounder principles 
of Christianity ? It brought down the king from his stern 
official bracings with which he had nerved himself for 
the trial, and placed him a captive at the feet of a captive 
peasant. And where is the writer who surpasses — not to 
say equals — Isaiah in those lofty soarings of eloquence, 
and those deep researches into the deeper mines of reason, 
with which he unravels and elucidates the higher and 
gublime principles of theoretic and practical godliness ? 

Say, does not the erudite and classic theologian graduate 
in the school of the older prophets ? Elementary, indeed ! 
Then where are the classics ? 

Fourthly, The old system has vanished away — become 
obsolete — we are told, and is laid aside. What is it, I 
inquire, that has thus become obsolete? It must be some 
of its religious doctrines, or some of its rules of moral 



AS DIFFERING FROM CHRISTIANITY. 539 

conduct. And will any man venture to say tliat one jot or 
tittle of either has become antiquated, obsolete, or in any 
way has lost any of its innate virtue, or practical binding 
force upon us ? 

I have previously, several times, and perhaps sufficiently, 
explained that there is not a doctrine of religion nor rule 
of moral conduct in the New Testament, which is not 
found in the Old. Any man may convince himself by 
trying to find one. Then what has become obsolete? 
Nothing about religion — nothing about morals. And I 
confess that but for their teachings in religion and ethics, I 
think I could get along without either the Old or New 
Testament. 

Fifthly, But perhaps we may be told that it is the relig- 
ious ceremonies of "the old dispensation" w^hich have 
become obsolete, or were changed; that is, in plainer 
words, the ceremonies of religion in vogue before Christ, 
vanished away on the advent of the Saviour. This, in the 
first place, if this be all, is whittling the thing down to 
little or nothing. If nothing vanished away but some 
religious ceremoiiies, then what about the system of religion 
being a temporary system? What about the first being 
merely preparatory f How can some religious ceremonies 
be preparatory to others ? How can some ceremonies be 
adapted to Jews, and others to mankind in general ? How 
are these ceremonies the bud and those the ripe fruit ? 

What are religious ceremonies? Do they embody any 
religious tenets ? Does any doctrine inhere in a ceremony ? 
A ceremony is only a mode of inculcating and impressing 
religious truths, and inspiring religious feelings. Kneeling 
in prayer -is a ceremony. Standing in prayer is a ceremony. 
Congregational reading of the Scriptures is a ceremony, 
and so is preaching, the routine of a class-meeting, taking 
bread and wine in the eucharist, dismissing a congregation, 



540 JUDAISM CONSIDERED, 

uncovering the head by men, singing, etc. The various 
branches of the Christian Church have a hundred ceremo- 
nies. And are these the things which are perfected, estab- 
lished, made permanent, under " the new dispensation"? 

But as matter of fact, this is not true, for they are 
always changing here and there. Neither is it true that 
those in vogue before Christ ceased, discontinued, or waxed 
old at all, in any way, or for any cause. Very many of 
them are in vogue now, and have always been. Then 
if it was not morals, nor religion, nor ceremonies that was 
changed and made permanent, what was it ? 

And if every verse of every chapter of every book in 
the Old Testament is now "profitable for doctrine," and 
for every moral and religious purpose, then, I ask, what 
is " abrogated "? what has waxed old and vanished away ? 
what has the Christian religion superseded? what was 
"temporary" as compared with "true religion," to quote 
the precise words of a theologian ? 

I hold myself ready, in good faith, to sit at the feet 
of any teacher and be taught in biblical knowledge ; but 
if the teacher can't teach me any thing that I can under- 
stand, then I am not taught. And mere unexplained 
assumptions about an old and a new dispensation, about a 
temporary and preparatory system, its having vanished 
away and Christianity coming in its stead, etc., do not 
convey to my mind any clear ideas sufiiciently tangible for 
a rational understanding of the subject. 

Sixthly, But do not the Scriptures speak of some things 
pertaining to the Old Testament as having waxed old, and 
vanishing awayf Then what was thus left behind, old and 
useless ? 

That question, it seems to me, is easily answered. Let 
any man mth a Reference Bible, turn and read carefully 
all those passages first ; and then let him remember — 1st* 



AS DIFFERING FROM CHRISTIANITY. 641 

That a part of Scripture was revealed before the advent of 
our Saviour. 2d. That in those times, symbolic teaching 
was carried to a pitch of didactic force and perfection which 
to us in this age would be perfectly astonishing. They had 
no popular literature, but were shut up to the necessity 
of that mode of teaching generally. And let him farther 
suppose that the people then had the very same written 
religion and rules of morals we have now ; that there was 
nothing temporary about either, but that they recognized 
the same faith in the same Christ, the same gospel, the 
same priesthood, the same holiness ; that in all these things 
they stood precisely where we stand, except that, chrono- 
logically, they stood on the other side of the mere period 
of the coming of Christ. 

Now the reader sees that, in order to teach the very 
same things we teach, and not having the life, death, and 
cross of Christ to point to as seen things, they must reach 
the same ends by other modes. They had to teach the 
future coming and the character of Christ as our Saviour ; 
and we have to teach the having come, and the character 
of the very same common Saviour, and the same conditions 
of salvation. 

This teaching they would do with such means as they 
had, and not with such as they had not. They had to 
teach things which had not been seen — that is, they had to 
lead forward into the future and pre-represent coming 
things; and this they had to do in the Oriental style of 
symbolizing. 

This was a very different thing than for us to point to 
visible, historic things, and draw inferences therefrom. 

Now I think it is easy to see what vanished away. The 
pointing forward, with all the dimness of future coming 
history, vanished away. The absolute necessity for sym* 
bolic teaching vanished away. The chronological position 



542 JUDAISM CONSIDERED. 

they occupied vanished away. The anticipation of a Sa- 
viour's coming vanished away. And all those rites which 
pointed forward vanished away. 

If we could but realize the greatness and the suddenness 
of their change of chronological position in regard to 
the Saviour, we would see a great and wondrous waxing old 
and vanishing away ; but we would see no vanishing away 
of any thing except such things as pertain naturally to the 
respective periods, before and after the human advent of 
Christ. 

Our religion is eminently natural and rational. Our 
Saviour is the same kind of Saviour, and the same personal 
and identical Saviour, to all the children of Adam. 

And yet Dr. Clarke tells us that " the change is not a 
change of merely one religious sentiment, or mode of 
worship for another, but a change of tempers, passions, 
prospects, and moral conduct. All before w^as earthly, or 
animal, or devilish, or all three together ; but now, all is 
holy, spiritual, and divine." 

I do n't believe that, because it contradicts the plain Scrip- 
ture. It is a mistake that, before Christ, every thing was, 
in the highest sense, bad ; and that since, " all " was essen- 
tially good. But both before and since, there was a natural 
world and natural people ; and men acted, and thought, and 
talked, and lived naturally ; and the Bible and its religion 
are rational things ; and God is without variableness or the 
shadow of turning. 



ST. PAUL MISREPRESENTED. 543 



CHAPTER LXXXIV. 

BBIEF EXPOSITION OF THE MANNER IN WHICH ST. PAUL 
IS SOMETIMES MISREPRESENTED. 

We have far more of personal biography of St. Paul 
than of any other individual Christian of his time. He 
was in early life a man of learning, great force of character, 
and much personal prominence among his people ; but like 
many other Church-members, both in that day and in this, 
he had no piety. He had his views and opinions about relig- 
ion, and he held to them with great tenacity. This is no 
very uncommon thing in any age of the Church. He was 
a high-toned religionist, a churchman, a philosopher, and 
critical disputant, arbitrary and intolerant. 

When the question arose about Jesus being the Christ, he 
took sides with the Sanhedrim, contending that he was not ; 
and thus, that is the same as to say, that those modes of 
worshiping and of inculcating religion which were naturally 
and essentially ante-3Iessianic, were still ante-Messianic, and 
therefore were to be continued as such. This conclusion was 
of course proper and legitimate, upon supposition that Jesus 
was not the Christ, no matter what other views and opinions 
might be held. He believed these things. And the reason 
why he believed them was the same that causes other men 
in all ages to believe gross religious errors, viz., proud, high- 
headed notions, and worldly-mindedness about religious 



644 THE MANNER IN WHICH 

things. This is generally what prevents men from submit- 
ting to the simple teachings of revelation. 

But Saul was converted — converted as other men are. 
He was converted to Christianity — to the revealed religion — 
to the truth — the gospel — converted to God — to the true re- 
ligion of his ancestors. But there w^as then no revealed 
written religion existing in any tangible form — no Chris- 
tianity — no gospel except that contained in the books of the 
Old Testament. 

But what was he converted f7wn f He was converted 
from sin. But more particularly, he was converted from a 
heresy he imbibed a few years before in denying that Jesus 
of Nazareth was the Christ. Previously to that time, though 
unconverted, and only nominally a Christian, his faith was 
as true, as orthodox, as it ever was, so far as we know. The 
only error in doctrine he was ever guilty of, so far we know, 
was his denying, not Christianity abstractly — for that he 
never did — but denying Jesics as Christ. 

His religion now is Christianity undoubtedly, of the 
purest and best stamp. But how does it differ from his 
former religion ? So far as practical piety is concerned, he 
never had any religion before. He is now for the first time 
a converted man. But so far as his religious belief of doc- 
trines and principles are concerned, the case is different. His 
religion now is prominently and vitally opposed to the her- 
esy he entertained during the last few years about Jesus not 
being the Christ ; but his doctrines and principles, so far as 
we know, are the same they were before he took up that 
heresy ; though previously we have very little knowledge of 
him at all. In the theory, he may have believed and under^ 
stood the Scriptures — the Old Testament — very well ; or he 
may have entertained any of these or those notions of Phari- 
sees or Sadducees, or any other religious errors afloat at that 
time. Supposing him to have understood his own religion, 



ST. PAUL IS SOMETIMES MISREPRESENTED. 545 

his own Scriptures, then his religious opinions now are the 
same they were before he repudiated Jesus as Christ, for the 
Old Testament is not contrary to the New. 

And when converted, he behaved himself like other con- 
verted men. Now he believed in Jesus, whom he formerly 
repudiated. And seeing that this was a vital question, and 
the truth of it captivating his heart, he preached it to 
others. 

We are told the conversion of St. Paul gives very great 
evidence of the truth of Christianity. Just as much as that 
of other men, I think, and no more. The conversion of any 
man gives to him absolute demonstration on the subject; 
and so the conversion of any man, supposing that fact to be 
so, is necessarily conclusive evidence of the truth of Chris- 
tianity ; for it would be logically absurd to suppose any 
conversions and the Christian religion not be true. I can- 
not, therefore, consider Lord Lyttleton's argument on this 
point of any value — it is mere special pleading ; and so of 
the same opinion advanced by later writers. 

Dr. Clarke says, (end of Eom. ix.,) " Had he (Paul) con- 
tinued a Jew, he w^ould have infallibly risen to the highest 
dignities and honors of his nation." 

And did he not continue to be a Jew ? How could he 
cease to be a Jew? What is meant by his ceasing or con- 
tinuing to be a Jew? He w^as, naturally and ecclesiastically, 
what was commonly called a Jew. When converted to the 
true faith — to a proper understanding and practical appli- 
cation of his own faith — he, like all other men who may 
have imbibed religious error more or less, laid aside those 
errors and cherished the truth. 

Surely religious error did not make Paul a Jew ; for if so, 
then the prophets, the Saviour, the apostles, and millions of 
other pious Jews, were not Jews. Surely his being a Chris- 
tian did not prevent him from being a Jew ; for everybody 
18 



546 THE MANNER IN WHICH 

knows the whole apostolic Church, without one single ex- 
ception, was for many years composed of Jews. 

The idea that a man cannot be both a Jew and a Chris- 
tian is preposterous. That would contradict the Christian 
religion everywhere with all its reasonings and analogies, 
and would indeed make — as alas ! many writers have it — 
Christianity a new religion, and the Old Testament a fable. 

We are told in the "Guide to the Study of the Bible,'' in 
the Comprehensive Commentary, Sup, p. 102, that Paul's chief 
object in writing the Epistle to the Romans was, " to lessen 
their attachment to the Mosaic law." 

Perhaps I have not as much patience as I ought to have 
with such biblical guides as this. If some opponent of 
Christianity had written that St. Paul sought to lessen the 
attachment of the people to any thing written in Scripture, 
or to the whole Scripture, these same guides to the study of 
the Bible would have attacked him as an infidel; for I 
believe I read everywhere in all Christian writings, that 
Paul's whole life and labors, after his conversion, were 
devoted to the elevation and inculcation of all revealed relig- 
ion in the minds and hearts of all men. 

And for my part, I do not wish to study any " Bible," nor 
any part of any, which St. Paul depreciated or lessened in 
the estimation of anybody ; because, with me, it is a settled 
matter that Paul was an inspired teacher of all the revealed 
religion we have, and therefore I have no need of any guide 
in that direction. It is a road I intend not to travel either 
with or without guides. 

No, gentlemen ; Paul never sought to lessen the attach- 
ment of any people to any Scriptures, call them by what 
name you will. He sought the very reverse. He wrote to 
the Romans in order that they might understand the Mosaic 
law — the then existing Scriptures — and thereby appreciate 
it more and more highly. He sought, as I believe all evan- 



ST. PAUL. IS SOMETIMES MISREPRESENTED. 547 

gelical ministers do now, to enthrone these Scriptures, every 
word of them, high and deep in the mind and heart of the 
people. 

The Christian Instructor, Vol. ii., p. 423, tells us, that 
Paul's object in writing his Epistle to the Hebrews was, "to 
prove to the Jews from their own Scriptures the divinity, 
humanity, atonement, and intercession of Christ, particu- 
larly his preeminence over Moses and the angels of God, to 
demonstrate the superiority of the gospel to the law, and the 
real object and design of the Mosaic institution." 

That is not well expressed. His object was rather to con- 
vince them that the man Jesus was their Christ — the Christ 
of their religion. 

No Jew who understood the Old Testament ever ques- 
tioned " the divinity, humanity, atonement, and intercession 
of Christ;" but he did not therefore, necessarily, from the 
mere literature of the Old Testament, recognize Jesus as the 
Christ. That belief could result only from a candid and 
honest comparison of the man with the Scripture represen- 
tations of him, and from a faithful individual effort to test 
his Messiahship. 

But if Paul sought to set his brethren right with regard 
to Christ, " from their own Scriptures," how is it that he 
sought to " lessen their attachment " to their Scriptures ? 

The truth is, that St. Paul had the highest veneration for 
the then existing Scriptures, every word of them ; he taught 
them, preached them, recommended them, every "word of 
them. But he would have them understood, and not mis- 
understood. 

Paul's great arguments everywhere among the Jews were 
to prove that the man Jesus -was the Christ of ^ Scripture. 
That great fact once established, it then followed, from every 
part of the Old Testament — from "the Mosaic law," whether 
that expression be taken to mean a part or all of the Scrip- 



548 ST. PAUL MISREPRESENTED. 

tures — ^that all the adumbrant, forereaching, pre-represent- 
ing rites, of which there were several still in use in the 
Church, viz., passover, circumcision, typical priesthood, etc., 
that these must cease, because you cannot point forward to 
a thing which is past. 

The logical religious arguments of St. Paul, so far as we 
have them, were directed exclusively to one grand, central 
point, the great basis upon which all true religion rests, which 
was this : That the man Jesus was the Christ of Old Testament 
prophecy. That Christ was infinitely superior to Moses, was 
as stoutly claimed by the unbelieving as by the believing 
Jews. But the disputed point was. Who is Christ ? These 
find Christ in Jesus, but those deny it. That, and that only, 
was the point of dispute. 

Let it be admitted that Jesus is Christ, and then every 
thing else follows as matter of course. You have now only 
to understand the Scriptures intelligibly, and every thing 
explains itself fully. The adumbrant, forward-reaching, or 
typical rites, whatever they may be, cease as matter of 
course, and every thing else continues and moves on smoothly 
and without change. 

Without change^ I say, except in this, that great and in- 
creased light is thrown upon the whole picture of religion. 
All the principles of religion there are, are enunciated in 
the Old Testament ; but now they are elaborated, explained, 
illustrated, and enforced in a manner better than they were 
or could have been before. 



FLEETWOOD'S LIFE OF CHRIST. 549 



CHAPTER LXXXV 



A GLANCE AT FLEETWOOD'S LIFE OF CHPvIST. 



In his Introductory Essay, p. 62, it is said, " From this it 
is evident that Judaism, in its yery nature, was a temporary 
system, preparatory to another which should fidfill its pending 
anticipations, and consummate its partially dissolved designs. 
In its very nature the religion of Moses could not continue." 

Leaving for the present out of the question the last state- 
ment of the above extract — that the religion of Moses could 
not continue — I remark concerning the previous statement, 
that there is a sense in which it may be understood to be 
true — rather an oblique and not very classical one, per- 
haps — and there is a sense in w^hich the author could not 
have intended to be understood. Fully understood, there 
can scarcely be a difference of opinion. Let us see. 

First The author in many places just along where the 
extract is found, and elsewhere, uses the word Judaism in 
its ordinary and proper sense to mean the religion of the 
Old Testament, as its principles and theory are therein 
written and enjoined. 

Secondly. In the above extract he uses the word Judaism 
in, a very different sense, and to mean a different thing. 
This is certain, because he goes on to explain that the things, 
or system of things, which could not continue beyond the 



550 A GLANCE AT 

death of Christ, were not religion, but actions. And all 
this is very true, and is the very thing I have contended 
for in many parts of this Essay. 

Thirdly, Now, what is religion? and what relation do 
actions bear to it ? Religion — any religion, true or false — is 
exclusively intellectual, moral, and spiritual, and is in no 
sense physical. Religion no more consists in external ac- 
tions of the physical man, than it does in wood or iron. 
Nevertheless, actions bear a very intimate relation to relig- 
ion, and stand very nearly allied to it. What is that rela- 
tion ? Actions are enjoined and used as instruments for the 
teaching, incidcation, and propagation of religion. Walking 
to church is not religion, but it is an action sometimes used 
for the inculcation of religion. Sitting, standing, kneeling, 
singing, pouring water on the head, and pronouncing certain 
words, taking a crumb of bread and a sip of wine, making 
the sign of a cross on the head or breast, burning wax- 
candles in the daytime, immersing a person in water and 
pronouncing certain words, chanting in Latin, reading the 
Scriptures, preaching, and listening to preaching, uncover- 
ing the head, and many, many other physical actions seen 
now-a-days everywhere in the Church, are in themselves 
not religion, by any means — they are mere muscular actions, 
used more or less profitably or unprofitably as instruments 
for the teaching and inculcation of religion. 

Fourthly. Religion in its very nature being in a man's 
head and heart, consisting in principles and emotions, being 
invisible, and man's constitutional susceptibility being what 
it is, his head and heart are very much influenced by his 
actions, either in favor of or in opposition to religion, or to 
almost any thing else. Actions, therefore, of a thousand 
kinds, in the various circumstances of human condition, are 
most powerful instruments for the teaching and inculcation 
of religion. And these actions, if viewed rightly, give evi- 



FLEETWOOD'S LIFE OF CHRIST. 551 

dence of the existence or non-existence of the belief and 
feeling which constitute religion. 

Those who tell us that some religionists — Jews, Moham- 
medans, or Greek, or Eomish, or other Christians — hold 
their religion to consist in actions, ceremonies, teach that 
which cannot be true. It is impossible for any person suffi- 
ciently rational to have religion at all — any kind of relig- 
ion, true or false — not to know that his religion consists in 
his moral, mental, or spiritual relation to God, or to his 
false god. However much importance — proper or im- 
proper — he may attach to external acts of worship, he 
could at most, or at least, but regard them as pleasing in 
the estimation of God, because of the evidence they give of 
his fealty, his reverence, and his obedience to God; and 
he could not but regard his religion to consist in these feel- 
ings of fealty, reverence, and obedience. 

Fifthly. In the period of the Church before Christ, divine 
teaching being rational, and men being rational, their relig- 
ious actions, or ceremonies, were wisely directed. How 
wisely directed? Why, so arranged as would best pro- 
mote intellectual thoughts, and holy feelings and senti- 
ments, in the people in those ages. And how could this 
be done ? In this way : Besides such actions as are natu- 
rally common, and rationally promotive of religious sen- 
timents in all circumstances, there was another class of 
actions which, in the nature of things, was peculiar to that 
period, and could not by possibility be used to promote 
religion in any other periods of the world. And what 
class of actions was this? Any actions which could be 
made to teach specifically and particularly of the Saviour 
and his atoning work. Before his visible appearance his 
person and work could be taught only by adumbration 
or pre-representation. You were then teaching about things 
which had not yet happened, but which would happen; 



552 A GLANCE AT 

but now, after the thing has happened, you can no longer 
use these kinds of instruments; nor would you if you 
could, for now you have the historic facts, which are a 
hundred-fold better. 

Sixthly, Now, in that ante-Messianic period, Christ, as 
their Saviour, was taught to the people by the use of a 
number of actions of this kind. And these actions, or this 
system of actions, as any one may choose to express it, 
could not, in the nature of things, as before stated, con- 
tinue to be used to inculcate religion — give a knowledge of 
Christ — after the period of the humanity of the Saviour. 
Certainly that was temporary "in its very nature," because 
ceremonies pointing forward to Christ's future manifestation 
could not continue beyond that event. Things typical of 
Christ's appearance were of course temporary ; but typical 
things were, in their very nature, actions, and not religion. 
And 

Seventhly, Now, it is these forward-pointing, these pre- 
representing actions, which make up the ^'temporary sys- 
tem " that Fleetwood says was " in its very nature tempo- 
rary." As to their religion itself, that was not temporary, 
because, besides the impossibility of the thing, as previously 
argued and explained perhaps sufficiently, it is historically 
true, in the greatest abundance, that all the doctrines of re- 
ligion now written in the New Testament were long previ- 
ously written in the Old. To go no farther than Chapter 
XLIII. of this Essay, there are there quoted four hundred 
passages from the Old Testament, prescribing and incul- 
cating about three hundred different doctrines and shades 
of doctrines of Christianity. And it will perhaps be readily 
conceded by all, that these Old Testament doctrines cover 
all the conceivable ground occupied by Christianity in all 
imaginable shades and shapes. 

Therefore, those who understand Fleetwood to mean that 



, FLEETWOOD'S LIFE OF CHRIST. 553 

the religion of Judaism was temporary, understand that 
which is not and cannot be true. The " temporary " things 
were only certain instruments or modes of teaching religion. 

As to the expression in the latter part of the above ex- 
tract, that " the religion of Moses could not continue," the 
author certainly does not mean religion. Nobody believes 
that. Every Christian minister, every Sabbath, everywhere, 
teaches, enforces, and recommends, all the doctrines of re- 
ligion written by Moses or any one else in the Bible. The 
remark is an inadvertence, a slip of the pen, a failure to 
discriminate between religion and physical modes of teach- 
ing religion. 

Moreover, what does the author mean by " the religion of 
Moses T The remark does not strike me as either very the- 
ological or very classical. Where does the idea come from 
that there is or has been a religion in the world entitled to 
that appellation ? "Why not call the religion written in the 
Old Testament the religion of Abraham, of Joseph, of 
Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Daniel ? And why not call the New 
Testament the religion of John, of James, Paul, or Peter ? 
Have we two religions — one of Moses and one of Christ? 
Personally, like other men, Moses had some religion ; and 
if it was not Christianity, then it was some form of infidel- 
ity about which I can certainly care but very little. 



654 CATECHETICAL OP THE CHURCH. 



CHAPTER LXXXVI. 

CATECHETICAL OF THE CHUKCH. 

1. Was there in existence, before the period of Christ, 
a regular, divinely recognized Church? And has there 
been one since ? Now, were these two separate, distinct, and 
different Churches, or one and the same f 

2. Does not a new Church necessarily imply a new relig- 
ion ? Can you separate between a Church and the religion 
of the living persons who compose it ? 

3. Was there, at or about the time of our Saviour, any 
difference of opinion between any persons about the Church, 
as to its organization, its laws, government, kind or number 
of oiBcers, etc.? Were there any complaints put forth by 
any one of, or about, the then existing Church? or was 
there any suggestion, by any one, that another or a better 
Church would be desirable ? 

4. Was our Saviour born into the Church of his fathers — 
formally initiated into the same as others were? — did he 
fully recognize its authority all the days of his life, and die 
a regular member of it ? 

5. Did all the apostles do the same thing? 

6. Was it claimed by any one, either then or now, that 
in all the Church trials we read of in the jSTew Testament, 
including that of the Saviour, (of course, in this regarding 
him as a man,) — was it ever claimed that the Jewish Church 



CATECHETICAL OE THE CHUECH. 555 

had not proper jurisdiction in the several cases? But, 
on the contrary, was not the jurisdiction always acknowl- 
edged ? 

7. Is there any thing in Scripture about a new Church, 
or about two Churches, or a distinction between Churches 
chronologically separated ? 

8. Did the Saviour or the apostles introduce any new 
ecclesiastical rules into the Church ? and if so, what were 
they ? Or, were there any new Church rules observed in 
those days other than such as pertained naturally to a post- 
Messianic period ? 

9. Did the Saviour and the apostles frequently officiate 
in the then existing Church as officers of the same ? 

10. Is the formation of a new Church — it being a true 
Church — a possible thing, supposing the previous one to be 
a divinely recognized Church ? 

11. Was the Church of God at any time in its history 
confined to any particular people — the lineal descendants 
of Jacob, or any other distinct people ? On the contrary, 
was not the door of the Church ahvays open to all f that is, 
of course, it is meant, all who would believe the truth and 
be religious, conforming to the rules of the Church, as is the 
case now. 

12. Did not "many people of the land become Jews"? 
that is, become identified with the Church ; and was there 
any " difierence " between these and those ? 

13. Which party of Jews le^i the Church at the time of 
the apostles — those who believed and received Christ, or 
those who denied and rejected him ? 

14. Was it always the policy of the Church — at least, by 
profession, and the ostensible rule of the Church-^to prose- 
lyte all mankind ? or, the more the better ? 

15. Were Gentiles, or anybody else, ever denied admit- 
tance into the Church ? And so, was it not always the duty 



556 CATECHETICAL OF THE CHURCH. 

of all men to go and live in the Church — that is, where 
there was no physical hindrance ? 

16. Were the customs, usages, and various doctrines of 
the Church ever the same in any two periods, a few years 
asunder, or in any two countries a few mil^ apart, or in 
two denominations of the Church at the same times and 
places ? 

17. To what Church did Timothy belong when Paul first 
became acquainted with him ? And did he ever join any 
other? 

18. Did Paul ever join any Church after he was eight 
days old? Did he distinctly and in terms recognize his 
membership in the Church of his fathers, when he was an 
old man, not long before his death ? 

19. Did the people of true religion, before the appearance 
of our Saviour, usually and habitually assemble on the 
Sabbath-day, for public worship, in houses appropriated to 
that purpose, or congregate in a place of convenient num- 
bers ? And in such congregations were the forms of w^or- 
ship materially different from such things since that period 
to the present time? And, if different, in what respects 
were they different ? Let such difference be stated in terms, 
and not in vague generalities. What were houses of wor- 
ship in, and before the apostolic age, usually called ? 

20. How many houses of public worship of this sort were 
there in those days in Jerusalem ? And was such Sabbath- 
day worship in anywise private or exclusive, or was it public 
and open to all men ? 

21. Was the preaching of the gospel — Avhether that exact 
word was used to define it or not — a common thing in the 
Church at, before, and after the appearance of Christ? 
And how long has gospel been used to describe or denote the 
character of true religious preaching in the Church ? 

22. Did John the Baptist preach out-doors or in houses ? 



CATECHETICAL OF THE CHURCH. 557 

23. Was the preachmg of religion before the sending out 
of the severity, and about that time, true or false preaching? 
Or was it, as it is now, true with those who understood the 
Scriptures aright, and untrue as any may have misunder- 
stood their doctrines and precepts ? 

24. Were the priests mentioned in the Old Testament 
real atoning priests ? or was it their business — operating as 
they did before the atoning Priest became visible to the 
world— to pre-represent his atonement by such acts, addressed 
to the senses, as would be likely to teach the doctrine of 
atonement in those times ? 

25. Is there any difference between the Old Testament 
and the New as to the doctrine of atonement? or is the 
difference on that subject between the two Testaments 
merely in regard to the modes of teaching this doctrine — 
the one being before, and the other after, the atonement for 
sin was made manifest to human senses ? 

26. Were "the Jews the first and most inveterate enemies 
of Christianity " ? Or, is it not true that the entire Chris- 
tian Church, as it is frequently called, was composed of 
Jews at a period about ten or twelve years after the cruci- 
fixion, when it must have amounted to many hundred thou- 
sands ? 

27. What is meant by the word primitive, as applied to 
the Church in the days of the apostles ? Was the Church 
then primitive ? That is, was it then new ? Did the Church 
just then begin to exist ? Or had it had an existence many 
hundred years before ? 

* 28. Is a Church any thing more or less than the external 
association of religious persons, according to the Scriptures, 
for the promotion of religion ? 



558 CATECHETICAL, 



CHAPTER LXXXVII. 



CATECHETICAL. 



It is respectfully suggested that the follomng interroga- 
tories, though of very great importance to the student of 
theology, do not by any means lie down in the labyrinths 
of deep criticism, but rather on or near the surface of re- 
ligious teaching. Every man ought, therefore, to be able to 
give an answer to every question straight, square, categori- 
cal, and explicit. 

1. Was the religion of Abel, and other pious antediluvi- 
ans, any thing more or less, or any thing different from, 
simple faith in the atoning merits of Christ , however much 
or little they may have learned of an historic character, with 
regard to any visible, earthly exhibition Christ might be 
pleased to make of himself? 

2. If any one shall conclude that true religion in these 
days was in any thing different from what it is now, let him, 
for his safety and satisfaction, note down specifically in 
what that difference consisted, and find the Scripture for it. 

3. Can a man imagine any way in which purely religious 
ideas could be originated in the human mind other than by 
such external machinery as the Levitical ritual, since in 
the nature of things there could be no language to teach 
them? 

Note. — The inculcation of ideas, by means of language, 



CATECHETICAL. ' 559 

is the mere communication from one to another of existing 
ideas. But I speak of their origination among a people who 
did not possess them, of such purely spiritual ideas as the 
being of God, his power, goodness, immaculate purity— sin, 
pardon, atonement, a Saviour, etc. Revelation was made 
in language ; but if the ideas representing or corresponding 
to these words did not exist in the mind, then the words 
would reveal nothing. So some ideas must be originated 
before the revealed words could be intelligible. 

4. Was there any thing — and what — in the rites com- 
monly called the Jewish sacrifices, above, beyond, or differ- 
ent from such things as we can see were certainly or most 
probably necessary, or at least useful, for the origination 
and solid planting of religious ideas — Christian ideas — in 
the mind of a rude people, almost, or wholly, destitute of 
literature ? 

Note. — The typical character of such teachings is of course 
included in the above, because the teachings occurred before 
the advent of Christ. 

5. Are " all the descendants of Jacob, from the earliest 
times, frequently called Jews by us at present"? Were the 
ten tribes who revolted under Jeroboam "commonly" called 
Jews in history ? Were the Samaritans, their descendants — 
mixed blood — many generations afterward "commonly" 
called Jews? Were the ''myriads'' of Jews who believed 
in and were faithful to Christ— to use a single Scripture 
word denoting immense numbers, as held by all the critics — 
were they, after they were called Christians, ever called 
Jews, and are they "frequently so called by us at present"? 

6. Is there any evidence in Scripture that the Church, in 
and about the time of John the Baptist, was more irrelig- 
ious than at former periods, or than it was one thousand 
years afterward? 

7. Is there any historical evidence going to show, or to 



560 



CATECHETICAL. 



render it probable, that ever, at any one time, all the Phar- 
isees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Scribes combined, comprised 
over one in five hundred of the Jewish people? 

8. Was John the Baptist's religion any thing more or 
less, or diflferent from, simple Christianity, as we commonly 
understand it? And if different, in precisely what? Did 
he preach any "repentance-" different from the simple re- 
pentance which all now preach? And did he baptize 
people into any thing else than the belief that Christ had 
come f 

9. Is Judaimi any thing more or less, or different from, 
the written religion now seen in the Old Testament Scrip- 
tures ? If so, what is it, and wherein does it differ ? 

10. Is there any thing in all the written Old Testament 
Scriptures not now " profitable for doctrine," and useful and 
necessary to be truly taught and faithfully followed in re- 
ligious duty? If so, which are the specific portions thus 
unprofitaUe f 

11. Did not true, evangelical, divine religion exist, in 
both theory and practice, in \\vq world, long before the 
coming of Christ? Or, if any one supposes it did not, let 
him write down, not in vague generalities, but specifically 
and precisely, in what the ante-Messianic religion differed 
from that in vogue since. 

12. Did Christ our Saviour come into existence, or re- 
ceive, or in any way take any more power as a Saviour, or 
any willingness to save sinners, or exhibit any new mode of 
saving sinners, at any chronological period along in the his- 
tory of the world ? Did any thing occur in, with, or about 
him, eighteen hundred years ago, that we know of, except 
the manifesting of himself to human senses, and such other 
things as were naturally concomitant therewith ? 

13. Did the Christians, or persons commonly rated as 
Christians, who taught false doctrine, insisting upon circum 



CATECHETICAL. 561 

cision, etc., as complained of by Paul in several places, and 
mentioned in Acts, teach according to the written Scrip- 
tures — the Old Testament — or contrary thereto ? And did St. 
Paul, in contending against them, recommend a departure 
from, or a conformity to, the precise religion in whole, as 
written in the Old Testament ? 

14. Was circumcision the mode by which the sacrament 
of initiation was administered before the coming of Christ ? 
And did not Christ himself administer the same sacrament 
by the use of water, and command us ever after to do so ? 
Then supposing Christ to be a true teacher of the written 
religion of the Old Testament, does it not follow necessarily 
that, whatever particular characteristics that rite may have 
possessed, it w^as certainly and inherently confined by its 
own constitution to that period of the Church ? Then, 
whether you consider the rite a type of Christ or not, was 
not its use in initiating persons into the Church after that 
time a violation of the Old Testament ? 

15. Is there any doctrine of religion written in the New 
Testament, and not wTitten in the Old ? If so, specify it in 
terms, and not in vague generalities. 

16. Did Christ, in the Sermon on the Mount, or anywhere 
else, teach any new rule of ethics not already written — 
though by no means so fully explained and enforced — in 
the Old Testament ? If so, let it be specified in terms, and 
not in vague generalities. 1 

17. Did St. Paul declare that, in all his teachings, he 
taught nothing but what he found already taught in the Old 
Testament? 

18. Did the solidly pious, converted people, who under- 
stood the Scriptures aright, and who were grow^'n to years 
of— say sixteen to twenty, before the birth of Christ, and 
who continued their practical piety and understanding of 
the Scriptures every day until — say twenty or thirty years 



562 CATECHETICAL. 

after the crucifixion — did such persons change their religion f 
And if so, from vrhat faith, and to what faith did they 
change ? Answer in terms, and not in vague generalities. 
And did their children after them — supposing them to have 
been pious — continue the same religion precisely, or take on 
another ? 

19. Was the religion promulgated by the apostles, "first 
begun to be promulgated by them?" or was it, substan- 
tially — though not so fully elaborated — previously promul- 
gated ? And if there was a difference, sj)ecify the differ- 
ence in terms, and not in vague generalities. 

20. Does the Old Testament teach, in any exclusive sense, 
of temporal blessings or rewards only, or of both temporal 
and eternal rewards and punishments? And, in this re- 
spect, is there any difference between the teachings of the 
Old Testament and the New? Or, are they, or do they, 
not both " have promise of the life that now is, and of that 
which is to come " ? 

Note. — Collate the fifth and eighth verses of 1 Timothy 
iv., and it will show that the latter clause of the eighth 
grows out of the "v/ord of God" — meaning the Old Tes- 
tament, mentioned in the fifth verse. See, also, the same 
thing in more than two hundred places in the New Testa- 
ment. 

21. Is there any thing essentially religious in religious 
ceremonies? or are they not, on the contrary, in their 
nature, mere external modes or instruments of inculcating 
and enforcing religious truth and practice? And were 
there any ceremonies in common use in the Church before 
the coming of Christ, and not continued by the apostles, 
except such as were typical of the coming and death of 
Christ, and therefore, such as must necessarily cease on the 
coming of these events ? If so, what ones ? 

22. Are there more or less religious ceremonies, numeri- 



CATECHETICAL. 663 

cally, in the Church now, than were commonly used in it 
in the period before the Advent ? 

23. Can a law of God be repealed ? Does not the repeal 
of any law, by the authority which made it, necessarily 
imply some lack of wisdom in the enactment ? Does not 
the repeal, if necessary at the time, necessarily suppose a 
lack of adaptation in it to presently existing circumstances ? 
and therefore, would not a perfect Lawgiver have either 
given the law such conformity and applicability at the first, 
or have made it cease to be operative by its own inherent 
constitution? Does not the repeal of a law necessarily 
imply an after-thought ? 

24. Does a perfect law mean or imply any thing more or 
less than that it is so made that it never need be, and never 
can be, repealed or abrogated ? 



664 CONCLUSION. 



CHAPTEE LXXXVIII. 

CONCLUSION. 

What is the central idea or necessary foundation of Ro- 
manism, or Ritualism ? It is that the Church is a society 
of men, organized with positive laws, and such and such 
forms and constituents of government, for the promotion and 
perpetuity of religion ; which society, or brotherhood, was 
originally formed and set up in Jerusalem about eighteen 
hundred years ago, by the Saviour in person, or by his 
apostles. 

Now, suppose this to be untrue, both historically and 
philosophically, without looking particularly into any pe- 
culiar tenets of Romanism, what becomes of popery and 
ritualism ? No answer can be given than this, that they 
must suffer immediate and utter destruction. 

I make this suggestion, and in this form, on the simple 
grounds of logic ; and I repeat — suppose it to be true that 
there is no history, good or doubtful, in the New^ Testament 
or otherwise, attributable to that age, which gives any infor- 
mation of such a society being organized at that time, or 
indeed at any time; and then supposing again that it is 
philosophically demonstrable that the fraternity now exist- 
ing, which we call Church, could not possibly have come 
about in that way, but that the nature of its vital and in- 
herent constitution supposes and requires that it must have 



CONCLUSION. 565 

grown into being in some other and essentially different 
way from that above supposed ; then, I ask, in that case, 
what must become of the Eomish hierarchy and of all 
superstitious tendencies in that direction ? 

The answer is apparent and cannot be doubtful. 

But Romanism has anotjier fulcrum besides the ecclesias- 
ticism above. It rests not only upon the supposed organiza- 
tion of the Church by our Saviour, but supposes that he 
also then devised, introduced, and established a new and 
permanent religion for mankind. And its tenets and wor- 
ship are claimed to be true upon the ground that they 
conform to and follow this new Church-model and these 
divinely-established modes of worship. 

Now suppose all this to be untrue. Suppose that in fact 
the Saviour did not introduce, not only a new religious 
system, but suppose he did not introduce or teach a new 
religious doctrine of any kind, and not even a new precept 
in morals, but that he merely expounded, elaborated, and 
enforced authoritatively and divinely the doctrines and pre- 
cepts of religion already revealed. Suppose this to be 
historically true ; then, I ask, what must be the speedy fate 
of the errors of Eomanism ? Utter and speedy destruction, 
is the only answer that can be given. 

And then suppose again, that the nature of religion, the 
character of God, the constitution of man, and the necessary 
relation between them to be such, that there can be but one 
religious faith — ^but one set of conditions of salvation for 
any and all people, before and after the human appearance 
of Christ. Suppose this to be true. Could Eomanism sur- 
vive the establishment of such a principle ? Most assuredly 
it could not. 

- The peculiarities of Eomanism, as they differ from what 
Protestants call Christianity, whether true or false, rest 
^sentially and palpably on the supposition of a new relig- 



566 CONCLUSION. 

ious establishment set up by the Saviour in the days of the 
apostles. And hence the question about the succession of 
Peter, and indeed all the other important questions between 
Romanists and Protestants. 

But if Protestants would hold, square out, and both openly 
and plainly — as I think is mos# abundantly demonstrated 
in the foregoing dissertation — that there w'as, in no sense, nor 
in any shape, the establishment of either a neiv Church or 
new religion in the time of Christ, nor at any time, then the 
question about Peter falls to the ground wholly. And so- 
fall, also, the other differences. There could be no such 
questions at all as those which do in fact separate between 
Romanists and Protestants. 

Let us look a minute at a very few of these questions : 
One of them is, to " admit the Sacred Scriptures according 
to the sense which the holy mother Church has held and 
does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and 
interpretation of Holy Scripture." 

Now if it should turn out that there is not, and never was, 
any such holy mother Church, in the legal sense here sup- 
posed, and with this judicial power, then this tenet dissolves, 
and the doctrine falls back into the supposition that members 
of the Church are fallible men, who have merely associated 
together for the common ends and purposes of religion. 

But does not our literature admit, and have I not shown 
the admission in hundreds of places, that Christ, then and 
there, made a 7ieiu Churchy organized it, framed it, and so we 
call it primitive f And then, if so, was it not a holy Church? 
And having positive laws and a positive constitution, is it 
not the natural and legal mother of all successive Churches ? 
You may call this institution a Church, or by any other 
name, if the body was thus divinely invested with the nat- 
ural elements of government, viz., Legislative, Judicial, 
and Executive, w^as it not, and then is it hard to prove to 



CONCLUSION. 



567 



the satisfaction of many that it is not still, in its succession, 
the legal interpreter of the divine constitution? 

Another Romish tenet is, " I profess also, that there are 
truly and properly seven sacraments of the new law, msti- 
tuted by Jesus Christ our Lord," etc. 

But now, if it should turn out that in truth there is not, 
and never was, any neiu laiu at all, as is here meant, making 
seven sacraments, nor two sacraments, nor any other number 
of sacraments, then this tenet also is left without any sup- 
port whatever. 

And have I not shown, too, in the foregoing treatise, that 
this doctrine of new sacraments, made and geared into the 
Church at the period alluded to, is at least admitted by our 
current literature? Are we not then trying to cleanse the 
stream by working along down its current rather than by 
applying the purifying processes at the fountain? 

Another tenet iS; " that there is made a conversion of the 
whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole 
substance of the wine into the blood, which conversion the 
Catholic Church calls transubstantiation." 

All this supposes not only a new mode of administering 
a sacrament, which is really the thing, and the only impor- 
tant or vital truth taught on that subject by Christ, but it 
supposes neiD sacraments, which can only mean or suppose a 
new religion. And I suggest the inquiry, as not unworthy 
of consideration — ^how far our own admissions have formed 
the only ground upon which this tenet of Eomanism rests ? 

Mr. E. J. Wilberforce says : " Let us go back to the time 
when the Church existed in its embryo form in the college 
of the apostles." Grant him that in the time of the apos- 
tles the Church existed in an embryo form, and you give 
' him a position in which he may be able to stand, but which 
is given him at the expense of at least historic truth. Look 
at the Church as it vxis and is, and the supremacy of an 



568 CONCLUSION. 

apostle cannot be supposed; transubstantiation cannot be 
supposed ; Church infallibility cannot be supposed ; neither 
can auricular confession, the " new law," nor popish Church 
authority, for they all rest upon the idea of a legal ecclesi- 
asticism. 

Romanism is ecclesiasticism, and ecclesiasticism is Ro- 
manism in essence and in meaning. Let this doctrine of a 
" primitive Church," and of the " introduction of Chris- 
tianity " into it be conceded, and I will not say that all these 
errors of popery will necessarily follow, but I will say they 
are likely to follow, and that they cannot possibly stand 
without them. And I will farther say, that they did grow 
out of them, at least to a very considerable extent, prima- 
rily. They are but the natural offshoots of an ambitious 
Church, of low piety, which supposes itself to have origin- 
ated in the unnatural and untruthful manner combated in 
the foregoing treatise. 

What, then, is the general mode of warfare put forth by 
many of our writers in their attacks upon the superstitions 
of Romanism ? They strike at the branches while the root 
remains vigorous and untouched. Acknowledging its great 
premise, we deny and object to some of its plausible, if not 
reasonable, conclusions. If we — many of us — do not teach 
openly and expressly that the Church we call Christian, and 
the religion we call Christianity, were brought newly and 
for the first time into being by our Lord Jesus Christ, about 
eighteen hundred years ago, we so explain, or fail to explain, 
as to leave that easily, if not necessarily, to be inferred. 

The above arguments will lie with equal force against all 
forms of High-Church doctrines, whether such doctrines 
relate to the existence of the Church, the powers and func- 
tions of the ministry, or to the rules of religion. Nay, a 
little more than this. Where is the Church division, the 
religious controversy, the schism, the party strife and con- 



CONCLUSIOIS', 669 

tention, which does not grow directly or indirectly out of the 
false doctrines of an " original Church " in the time of the 
apostles, and a Christian religion " suited to all mankind/^ 
which I have endeavored to combat and expose in the fore- 
going chapters? 

When, may I not ask, are we to get clear of Eoman- 
ism? We have met it with much ability and some suc- 
cess in the higher walks of theological polemics ; but is it 
less dangerous in its commonplaceness ? Is it in its clas- 
sics only to be combated, while its Primers and First Read- 
ers are to remain in the hands of the children and the 
masses? 

Does not at least some of our literature need expurga- 
tion ? And if the standard books need it, what of the more 
numerous, and perhaps more useful, or at least more popular, 
works of second-rate type ? 

Look at one of the very first classics of the age^ or of any 
age, standing at the head of the list. Butler^ $ Analogy is 
hampered no little in this way. All the way through there 
is explicitly recognized two distinct and different religions 
— ^the one " established " by the Saviour in the time of the 
apostles, and the other long previously. And if the very 
learned author were asked which one of these religions he 
advocated, the book answers immediately : The Christian. 
And then suppose he w^ere asked, What of " the Jewish 
religion " which existed previously to " the estf^blishment of 
Christianity ? " What relation does it bear to mankind ? and 
where is traceable the analogy of that religion to the con- 
stitution and course of nature? 

I do not hesitate to believe there is not found in the 
Analogy a smooth and satisfactory answer to th^t question. 
And, for my part, I confess I do not feel any great interest 
in the vindication of a " Christianity " which is a special re- 
ligion. Christianity pertains to revelation, wholly, solidly. 



570 CONCLUSION. 

And then, remembering that in arguments in support of 
religion, we are addressing men supposed to be more or less 
skeptical, an intelligent man proceeds only as he is driven 
by force of logical argumentation, finds himself embarrassed. 
Here, he is taught, are two revealed " religions," differing 
widely from each other. He does not understand it. The 
theologian may understand it, or rather content himself with 
not understanding it, after this manner: "They are the 
same religion virtually — the one grows out of the other ; the 
one is the bud and the other the fruit ; the one was prepara- 
tory, and the other complete ; the one was temporary, and 
the other final ; the one was a type of the other ; the one 
was calculated for a particular race of people, and the other 
for all mankind." 

These explanations, besides being contradictory and em- 
barrassing, are far from being satisfactory to the reader who 
has a hundred times seen " the Jewish religion " denounced, 
sometimes as " a system of folly and delusion," and some- 
times something worse. He has a hundred times seen the 
" two religions " placed not only in contrast, but in hostility 
to each other. He has often been told, in many forms of 
expression, that the " old religion " was utterly repudiated 
by the Saviour and the apostles ; that the Jews were urged 
to abandon it. He has seen the Jews anathematized whole- 
sale, because they still clung to " the faith of their fathers," 
and has seen the Gentiles brought in to occupy their place 
and enjoy the " new religion ;" and he is not therefore well 
prepared to understand or to favor the doctrine of oneness, 
or sameness, in these two antagonistic religions. By his own 
reflections he could see that there could be but one religion 
for mankind, though he might see that in different ages and 
different circumstances of mankind there might be very 
different modes of teaching it. 

If you were to tell him plainly from the beginning, and 



CONCLUSION. 671 

throughout, that there is now and was always one, and but 
one, revealed religion— that it always had the same object — 
the same end — was for all mankind; that God, being infin- 
itely wise and benevolent, religion was analogous to the con- 
stitution and course of nature, that would be at least 
consistent, and he could understand it. And such argu- 
ments being true as well as logically consistent, he might 
be influenced by them. 

But Bishop Butler tells him that, " The establishment of 
the Jewish and Christian religions, which were events con- 
temporary with the miracles related to be wrought in attes- 
tation of both, or subsequent to them, these events are just 
what we should have expected, upon supposition such mir- 
acles were really wrought to attest the truth of those relig- 
ions." 

This means that the establishment of the Jewish religion 
was an historic event, and the truthfulness of the system was 
attested by appropriate miracles ; and that at a subsequent 
period another and different religion was established, and 
its truthfulness was also attested by appropriate miracles. 

But when the New Testament is put into the hands of the 
inquirer, he does not there see any miracles wrought to attest 
a religion — a system of doctrines and morals ; all the mir- 
acles he sees were professedly in attestation of one single, 
simple fact, viz., that the man Jesus was the Christ; not, 
however, by any means, the Christ of a new religion, but of 
the Jewish religion, as the Bishop calls it. And so he 
neither understands what the Bishop means by " religions " 
— several religions — nor what new religion it is that he calls 
" Christianity." As a matter of fact, he sees that all the 
religion of all revelation. Old and New, is Christianity. By 
^^ Christianity I mean what I suppose everybody means — a 
religion which has Christ for its substance and vitality. 

Again, the Bishop teaches that, " The fact is allowed that 



672 coNCLusioisr. 

Christianity obtained, i, e., was professed to be received in 
the world upon the belief of miracles, immediately in the 
age in which it is said these miracles were wrought." 

But when the inquirer turns to the history of the times, 
he is hardly able to understand the Bishop, because he sees 
no such separate system of religion as he calls "Chris- 
tianity." He sees persons formerly called Jews, now called 
Christians, tenaciously adhering to the precise faith of the 
old prophets. He sees Paul and others commending and 
endorsing the faith of Abraham, of Noah, and even of Abel. 
And so he needs explanations which he certainly would not 
need if he had been told plainly, from the beginning, that 
there never had been but one Church and one religion, and 
that the " religions " of Bishop Butler was a mistake. 

It seems to me that if writers would confine themselves 
to the truth of history as well indeed as to the truth of 
religion, and rate Christianity as strictly identical with what 
they call the Jewish religion, teach one religion from the 
beginning, that their arguments in its favor would appear 
more reasonable, natural, consistent, and more in keeping 
with the character of God, as they represent his attributes. 
It is a hard thing to prove satisfactorily, to a man of close 
reasoning, more or less inclined to skepticism, the establish- 
ment of a new religion, a Christianity highl;y antagonistic 
to a religion which was once true, and which now is often- 
times pronounced both true and false. The thing lacks 
that smooth naturalness which men look for. 

Paley tells us in so many words, that the Saviour " changed 
the religion of the world," for that before that time the 
religion known to men was " a system of folly and delusion." 
And Butler inculcates the same doctrine in a hundred 
places, in various forms of expression. There were two 
"religions," the "old" and the "new;" and the former 
must needs be set aside, that the latter might be inculcated. 



CONCLUSION. 673 

Now, witli such teachings from such men, and with their 
lessons followed by hundreds of lesser writers, who consider 
it semi-sacrilege to question their teachings, how are we to 
approach men skeptically inclined ? And in the very same 
books too, where "the Jewish religion" is in a hundred 
places condemned in the strongest terms, it is also in a him- 
dred places commended in the strongest terms. 

Do these things require no explanation ? Men already 
convinced might be satisfied, and indeed they are satisfied, 
with a tangled-up explanation about " dispensations," and 
by giving some great and very mystical meaning to the 
word " typical," which can be made to explain almost any 
thing; but men not already convinced, are not so easily 
satisfied. 

I know of no way, under such circumstances, to approach 
a skeptic but to tell him these men are radically mistaken, 
or misrepresent themselves. I tell him that it is palpable 
that " religions " are not known to revelation ; that Scrip- 
ture recognizes one, and but one, straightforward system of 
religion from first to last ; that what some men call difier- 
ent religions is only different modes of teaching the same 
religion in different ages and different circumstances. And 
secondly, I open the Xew Testament wide before him to 
show that the Saviour and the apostles did not change the 
religion, or any religion. They only instructed men in their 
own old religion, endeavoring to get them to understand 
and cling the more closely to it They changed religion 
then just as all ministers do now. As far as they could 
they induced men to lay aside any false, ignorant, and erro- 
neous notions they might have imbibed through the mis- 
teachings of others or otherwise. 

When St. Paul tells us he received the gospel not from 
men, but from Christ, I do not understand him to mean that 
lie received thus a system of religion, or some religious doc- 



574 CONCLUSION. 

trines. Surely not. I understand him to mean that he 
thus received evidence of one single fact, viz., that the man 
Jesus was Christ 

We are frequently told that miracles were wrought " in 
attestation of Christianity," or the Christian religion. By 
this the reader, ninety-nine cases in a hundred, understands 
that these miracles prove the truth and verity of a new sys- 
stem of religion known by the general name of Christianity ; 
whereas, the Christian miracles were made to attest, not 
religious doctrines, but a fact in religion, vital to its truth, 
viz., that Jesus was Christ. It is difficult, if not impossible, 
to see how miracles can attest or prove the truth of abstract 
doctrines. At the period in question nothing needed attes- 
tation but the fact of the indwelling Messiahship in the 
person of Jesus. 

Some of the Scripture miracles were wrought by the 
hands of Moses, and some by Paul, and others. Those in 
Old Testament times attest, not doctrines, but facts, and 
these facts support the truths of the doctrines taught by 
didactic teachers. They endorsed the teachers. 

Doctrines are abstract propositions. It i^ a doctrine that 
there is but one God — that God is good — that he will hear 
prayer, and answer it — that he will forgive sins in certain 
circumstances, etc. Miracles are physical, or they present 
physical phenomena to the observation. By them a man 
might prove himself a true teacher, and so attest his teach- 
ings to be true. This is their office. Messiah endorsed Moses, 
N^oah, Abraham, Elijah, etc., as true teachers, and these 
teachers taught the doctrines of religion known to revelation. 

But vvhen Christ appeared in the person of Jesus, then 
the truth of this great fact needed attestation. And I can 
conceive of no other way in which this could be done but 
by miracles. I can conceive that Christ might have come, 
and might have appeared in a different form and manner 



CONCLUSION. 575 

from what he did, but I can conceive of nothing but 
miracle of some sort that could bring the visible aspects of 
the atonement of the Saviour in contact with the mind. 

But when told that miracles attested the truth of Chris- 
tianity — meaning thereby a system of religious doctrines 
making up in the aggregate a body of divinity, or code of 
theology — I am told that which I cannot understand. And 
so I conclude that a vast amount of the arguments, attempt- 
ing, in this way, to establish the true religious theory, strike 
intelligent minds, inclined to disbelief, very obliquely, hav- 
ing by the very awkwardness of their attitude lost much of 
their force. 

We are often told how Christianity was " established," or 
" propagated," " at the very first." By such expressions the 
reader understands that the system of religion we call 
Christianity was " first established " in the days of Jesus ; 
w^hereas, the only thing first established on this subject, in 
that period, was the simple fact that the man Jesus was the 
Christ of religion. Beyond that all that was needful to be 
done was to elaborate the old doctrines authoritatively, and 
inculcate obedience to them. 

The teachings objected to in the foregoing treatise do 
also a great disservice to Christianity, in my judgment, in 
that they present modern Judaism in an unfair and untrue 
point of light. We owe it to truth, to fair dealing wdth 
Jews of the present day, and to ourselves, to present this 
subject in a fair and intelligible light before the world. The 
relation between the religion of modern Jews and Chris- 
tianity is, it seems to me, easily seen, and not difficult of 
rational and intelligible description. 

The way we have it now, for the most part, as the subject 
actually exists in the popular mind, is, that the Jews around 
us retain and still profess the religion of " the old dispen- 
sation." Then Christianity is a heresy. That result is as 



676 CONCLUSION. 

necessary as that twice two are equal to four. Tlie popular 
mind has it that the Jews, in the time of the apostles, would 
not change their religion and become Christians ! The pro- 
position is both untrue and preposterous. And the writers 
tell us — a few scores being quoted in the foregoing treatise — 
that they continue their ancient faith. And so the ungrace- 
ful logic runs, that their religion covers a large part of 
Christianity, and it only requires a recognition of Christ to 
complete it ! 

We ought to treat modern Jew^s better than that. We 
owe it to them as well as to ourselves, to have it understood 
with them, that upon supposition that Jesus was Christ, 
their religion is not only w^holly false, but wholly a depar- 
ture from all and every part of the religion known to the 
Old Testament. And, secondly, that whether Jesus was or 
was not the Christ, their present religion is entirely new as 
to the Old Testament religion, for that whereas the latter 
suspends salvation w^holly upon faith in an atoning sacrifice, 
theirs bases it upon personal, external actions. 

The baseless and self-destructive myth about the national 
" restoration " of these few fragments of what was, more than 
three thousand years ago, a Jewish people, ought not much 
longer to ignore the plain history of the Bible, and disgrace 
the religious literature of the day. 

I may be told that the authors cited — in at least most in- 
stances — teach the doctrine of one Church and one religion. 
I know they do. Sometimes some of them teach it with 
considerable plainness, but generally, with many waiters, in 
a qiia^i, indefinite, or inconclusive manner. But they also 
teach the doctrines I attribute to them. It has not been my 
purpose, by any means, to review generally the writers I 
quote from ; if so, I should have a very difierent task to 
perform. I have only been pointing out some of their 
defects. 



691 



^^*^ ^^. 



e^~ 






.^-^ ■% 









, >^^ ^0■' 






O^ 






^x / '^ 






^%^'^.'^: % 






- ~^ -t : 






^' -/^ - '^. 






n — 












-oo"^ 






-.^-^ "^^ 






-/.^t:,'\x# %:^:: 


■^ v: 




V. '^-e*. 






'f/ 






V 


s ■ 




o>^' 


'/^, 




\ 






a'^^ c" 






^-./^ 






\0°^. 






^ ' 'i^ 






q, % « . 


A 








cT' \^- 



^ A 


■x'^ 


% 


>A v^' 






^^°<. 
















:;"*/■% 


v^^ 


i% 


=^OQ^ 


<t. v^^ 


l<. 




. .^^^ '^^. 


xO<5^. 



.^ 






--^^ ^ 8 , A "^ ^ ^^^ 

** '5 A o ^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

^ T *r" '^. v, ,. Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

- ^' ,A^ • ■' 1 '"'C- s^ Treatment Date: April 2005 

v^^/ - ^ ^ PreservationTbchnologies 

^ '^ ^ ^"^ ' A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
<r. \'^ 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 

' ' * ^ v^ _.^y ^ '^~» "" '' CranberryTownship, PA 16066 

--^- '' '^^ ^"^ *^^^5\\V (724)779-2111 






.- .#■ 






r< -^^ ' 



;^" 



^ 



ii^ 






<^ 


%^ 


«c 






s> 




- 








-Tv ^ ' 


■-> 




\^'^ 


^ 


;^^\'. 


^ 


•>^ 


0^ 


>v. 


y-^^-,Tl 




o 








^ 


^^ 


^'^U/iy-^ ^ 


.>-^ 


V 








-^^ 



^^•^o^ 



ip 



>. 



c: 






-?■ 



^^tc^i^^^-f ^^y 



^. 



■5'. 



''^. 



^^-^^^ 






^^%' 



^•3 



S= ■•:?-, 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 085 007 A » ■[ 



"•I* . 



J 



■ ■■■■■.■'n-'-:< 






% 

;■.;■!■■•? 



